7. Security Council Resolution 1973: A New Interpretation of the Notion of Protection of Civilians?

2013 ◽  
pp. 145-167 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Resolution 1973

scholarly journals Arguing Matters

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Dunne ◽  
Katharine Gelber
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
The Future ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Resolution 1973

This article analyses international negotiations over the 2011 Libyan crisis during the short weeks between the start of the uprising and the passage and implementation of un Security Council Resolution 1973. We make two arguments: first, following Risse, we demonstrate how and when argumentation around the humanitarian norm of protecting civilians mattered in these debates; second, we show that failure on the part of the supporters of the intervention on humanitarian grounds to maintain consistent and genuine argumentation in relation to that mandate is a key factor in explaining the subsequent lack of agreement about collective action inside the Security Council. We conclude that the lesson that arguing mattered in relation to Libya has been insufficiently appreciated, but needs to be better understood in order to facilitate the future traction of the RtoP norm in international negotiations.

Civilian Protection in Libya: Putting Coercion and Controversy Back into RtoP

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Community ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Host State ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Resolution 1973

As noted by other contributors to this roundtable, the response of the international community to civilian deaths in Libya—and the threat of further mass atrocities—is unusual in two key respects. First, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians without the consent of the “host” state. The Council's intentions, and actions, could not be interpreted as anything other than coercive. Second, in contrast to other crises involving alleged crimes against humanity (most notably Darfur), diplomacy produced a decisive response in a relatively short period of time. Both of these features suggest that many analysts of intervention (including myself) need to revise their previously pessimistic assessments of what is possible in contemporary international politics.

scholarly journals China and the “Responsibility to Protect”: The Implications of the Libyan Intervention

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew GARWOOD-GOWERS
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
The Impact

The emerging principle of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) challenges China's traditional emphasis on non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states and non-use of force. This article considers the impact of the 2011 Libyan intervention on Beijing's evolving relationship with R2P, and assesses its implications for the future development of the doctrine itself. It argues that China's decision to allow the passage of Security Council resolution 1973, which authorized force in Libya, was shaped by an unusual set of political and factual circumstances, and does not represent a significant softening of Chinese attitudes towards R2P. More broadly, controversy over the scope of NATO's military action in Libya has raised questions about R2P's legitimacy, which have contributed to a lack of timely international action in Syria. In the short term, this post-Libya backlash against R2P is likely to constrain the Security Council's ability to respond decisively in civilian protection situations.

scholarly journals The Myth, the Truth, and What Security Council Resolution 1973 Changed: The Use of Force for the Protection of Human Rights

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Jardón
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Resolution 1973

En este trabajo se evalúa el debate a largo plazo sobre la legalidad del uso de la fuerza para la protección de los derechos humanos. En virtud de una interpretación de la Carta, la intervención humanitaria es, a priori, rechazada como una medida legal para proteger los derechos humanos, pero la legalidad de la autorización del Consejo de Seguridad para el uso de la fuerza por razones humanitarias es argumentada. No obstante, en una interpretación de la Carta de la ONU y un análisis de la práctica del Consejo, el documento propone que las autorizaciones encuentran su límite en el principio de soberanía territorial y el consentimiento del Estado territorial. La autorización para el uso de la fuerza en la resolución 1973 es la primera que fue adoptada sin el consentimiento del Estado territorial, cambiando, por lo tanto, la interpretación de la Carta y la jerarquía de los principios que durante muchos años gobernaron las relaciones internacionales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document