The use of force to protect civilians and humanitarian action: the case of Libya and beyond

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (884) ◽  
pp. 1063-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Pommier
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Humanitarian Organizations ◽  
Crucial Problem

AbstractThe Libyan crisis of 2011 has again raised the crucial problem of the choice of means in protecting civilians. Authorized by the international community as part of military operations in Libya, the use of force in protecting civilians has revived the concept of ‘humanitarian war’ and has raised a number of issues for humanitarian organizations, in particular concerning the notion of neutral, impartial, and independent humanitarian action.1 The article focuses on these humanitarian issues and, inter alia, on the possible impact on humanitarian action of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was at the basis of the intervention in Libya.

The Dangers of the Dissemination of Misinformation in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherine Foty
Keyword(s):  
Regime Change ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
Initial Report ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Domestic Affairs

The creation of the responsibility to protect doctrine reformulated the historical notion of humanitarian intervention. The new doctrine was centered around the principle of nonintervention, a basic precept of the u.n. Charter system, with its initial report explicitly excluding regime change disguised as humanitarian intervention as external to the scope of the doctrine. Military intervention was only to be the means of last resort after the exhaustion of several preliminary mechanisms. In its implementation, the broad mandate of the responsibility to protect has been harshly criticized because it opens the possibility for powerful States, often seeking regime change, to interfere in the domestic affairs of weaker States. This article will first discuss (i) the chronology and evolution of the doctrine, (ii) situating it in the context of the u.n. Charter prohibition on the use of force and articulating its nonbinding nature. It will then examine (iii) the cases of Libya and Syria, focusing on the initial decision to intervene and how the dissemination of misinformation has served to promote military interventions where they would otherwise be considered illegitimate. The article will conclude with a brief discussion of (iv) how the international community can move beyond misapplication and seek to limit its abuse.

scholarly journals UN Peacekeeping, Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-135
Author(s):  
S. Krishnan
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Government ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Armed Intervention

The question of armed intervention on behalf of the international community, in the internal affairs of a state against the wishes of the government of that state, in order to prevent widespread death or suffering among the population, is not a new one. Indeed Imperial Rome grappled with the same problems in Dalmatia and Judaea 2,000 years ago, as the international community does in those same regions today. How effective are peacekeeping operations in preventing and stopping violence? Is there an alternative to United Nations (UN) and regional peacekeeping operations? The practice of UN peacekeeping is evolving in many instances into robust peacemaking actions with a positive responsibility to protect (R2P) civilians within the field of operations. The R2P (and ‘responsibility while protecting’ (RwP)) concept sets out a key principle to enable the international community to prevent atrocity crimes. Since its emergence, however, there have been intense discussions over how to put the principle into practice. Some aspects of the concept remainf unclear, including how to undertake, as the last resort, the use of military force. These issues must be considered within the boundaries set by R2P which seek at all costs to avoid the use of force for other reasons than ceasing mass atrocity crimes. The use of force, therefore – including possible military action by the international community, given growing international reluctance to accept grave threats to peace and security, including mass crimes against defenceless populations – has to be thoroughly analysed and comprehended. This article presents an analysis of the development of civilian peacekeeping, its relevance in the field of conflict resolution and its autonomy from multidimensional peacekeeping, championed by the UN.

Hacking humanitarians: Defining the cyber perimeter and developing a cyber security strategy for international humanitarian organizations in digital transformation

2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (913) ◽  
pp. 367-387
Author(s):  
Massimo Marelli
Keyword(s):  
Cyber Security ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Humanitarian Organizations

AbstractDigitalization and new technologies have an increasingly important role in today's humanitarian activities. As humanitarian organizations become more active in and reliant on new and digital technologies, they evolve from being simple bystanders to being fully fledged stakeholders in cyberspace, vulnerable to adverse cyber operations that could impact on their capacity to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict or other situations of violence.This shift makes it essential for humanitarian organizations to understand and properly map their resulting cyber perimeter. Humanitarian organizations can protect themselves and their activities by devising appropriate cyber strategies for the digital environment. Clearly defining the digital boundaries within which they carry out operations lays the groundwork for humanitarian organizations to develop a strategy to support and protect humanitarian action in the digital environment, channel available resources to where they are most needed, and understand the areas in which their operational dialogue and working modalities need to be adapted for cyberspace.The purpose of this article is to identify the unique problems facing international humanitarian organizations operating in cyberspace and to suggest ways to address them. More specifically, the article identifies the key elements that an international humanitarian organization should consider in developing a cyber security strategy. Throughout, the International Committee of the Red Cross and its specificities are used as an example to illustrate the problems identified and the possible ways to address them.

A Crime against Humanity? Implications and Prospects of the Responsibility to Protect in the Wake of Cyclone Nargis

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Langmore ◽  
Ashley McLachlan-Bent
Keyword(s):  
East Asian ◽  
International Community ◽  
Military Regime ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Debate ◽  
International Assistance ◽  
Disaster Assessment ◽  
Cyclone Nargis ◽  
Threshold Criteria ◽  
Coercive Intervention

AbstractIn May 2008 Cyclone Nargis created significant international debate when the ruling military regime in Myanmar refused to allow international relief supplies and specialists into the country. The discussion that followed included invoking the principle of Responsibility to Protect as a way of forcing the regime to accept international assistance. This proposal caused sharp division amongst governments, relief agencies, journalists and citizens. The regime's shocking refusal to accept assistance constituted a crime against humanity and, as such, deserved consideration as an R2P situation. The damage which military action involves was severely underestimated by those proposing it and although the situation following Nargis clearly met the threshold criteria, permitting coercive intervention, the precautionary principles were not satisfied, thus making coercive intervention under R2P impermissible. The involvement of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) following Nargis facilitated entry of disaster assessment teams and some aid into Myanmar. In light of Myanmar's fear of intervention in its affairs, the international community should have used R2P to frame a response and worked with ASEAN from the outset to pressure the regime to respond to the disaster more effectively.

Peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 134-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Hassler
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
International Solidarity ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces

This article examines the debate surrounding the responsibility to protect [R2P] with particular reference to the use of peacekeeping forces in that regard. Post-Cold War, human protection had expanded into a matter of international concern. Yet, where formerly humanitarian intervention was the mot du jour, a change in conceptual vocabulary led to the introduction of R2P and to a redefinition of sovereignty. Accordingly, the primary responsibility to protect its citizens rests with the sovereign state but, owing to international solidarity, the residual responsibility rests with the international community. Contextually, R2P is embedded in a continuum of responsibilities: prevent, react and rebuild. Proponents of the concept already see a norm in development. Still, divisions and confusion remain concerning the concept’s legal basis, its scope and its parameters. This is particularly relevant in view of peacekeeping forces, which have been increasingly deployed for humanitarian purposes. Because of ill-defined mandates and an overextension of resources, however, traditional peacekeeping is no longer suitable, lacking the resources, the personnel and the necessary expertise. To be able to fulfil the goals of R2P, peacekeeping will have to be redefined and the forces equipped with more robust mandates or fail.

International Responsibility, Protection and Displacement: Exploring the Connections between r2p, Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 390-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Political Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Internally Displaced Persons ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Internally Displaced ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Political Conflicts ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Responsibility

The emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) doctrine is part of a universal longing to prevent atrocities and to protect those affected by them. While its origins are quite distinct from international humanitarian principles, its links with humanitarian issues are clear. In fact, r2p emerged in response to humanitarian tragedies. This article traces the intersection of r2p and protection frameworks for refugees and internally displaced persons (idps), recognizing the important differences between them. r2p focuses on prevention, response and rebuilding – the first two tasks of which are inherently political. Conflicts cannot be prevented or resolved without engaging in political action of one kind or another. Responding to atrocities requires taking sides. Normative frameworks on refugees and idps, on the other hand, are based on the principle that people are to be assisted and protected on the basis of need alone and that humanitarian action is non-political in nature.

scholarly journals Organizacyjne i personalne ramy „globalnej wojny z terroryzmem” w świetle orzecznictwa sądów amerykańskich

Poliarchia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 51-95
Author(s):  
Dariusz Stolicki
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Impact

The Organizational and Personal Framework of the “Global War on Terror” in the Light of the Decisions of the United States Courts The article analyses the law of military detention applicable to the ongoing conflict with Al‑Qaeda and associated forces, to the extent that that law emerges from the jurisprudence of U.S. federal courts, and particularly of the D.C. Circuit. It discusses four major issues: the types of organizations against which military force can be used in accordance with the Congressional authorization, the range of persons subject to military detention in connection with such use of force (in terms of both legal categories and factual predicates), the scope of the battlefield on which the use of force is authorized, and the extent to which American citizens or foreigners lawfully present in the U.S. territory enjoy special immunity from military detention. The article concludes that the impact of the D.C. Circuit decisions on those questions extends beyond the issue of military detention, and provides the general legal framework applicable to other military operations directed against terrorist organizations in the Middle East, such as target strikes or the campagin against the self‑styled Islamic State.

scholarly journals Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Wallace Brown ◽  
Alexandra Bohm
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
Public Right

Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.

A matter of principle(s): The legal effect of impartiality and neutrality on States as humanitarian actors

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (897-898) ◽  
pp. 157-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Humanitarian Organizations ◽  
International Court ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Universal Applicability

AbstractThis article examines the legal nature of the principles of impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian action, focusing on States as humanitarian actors. It argues that international law does not provide a general legal basis for the universal applicability of these principles, contrary to a common interpretation of the International Court of Justice's 1986 judgment in theNicaraguacase. Nevertheless, impartiality and neutrality may have a significant legal effect on the conduct of States. They may be directly binding on States through the operation of Security Council resolutions drafted in mandatory language. In addition, they may have indirect effect due to the States’ obligation to respect humanitarian organizations’ adherence to the principles. On the basis of this argument, the article pleads for increased conceptual clarity and, in turn, effectiveness of humanitarian action.

15. The Use of Force, Collective Security and Peacekeeping

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Collective Security

International law aims to regulate the use of force in two ways. First, it stipulates that there is a paramount obligation not to use force to settle disputes, with only limited exceptions; and second, it has at its disposal a procedure whereby the international community itself may use force against those using violence. These are known respectively as the rules on the ‘unilateral use of force’ and the rules of ‘collective security’, both of which are discussed in this chapter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document