scholarly journals Why Libya, but not Syria?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Caruso
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World War ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Compare And Contrast ◽  
World War Iii

In both Libya and Syria, an uprising of civilians against their rulers resulted in intra-state conflicts. Despite comparable circumstances, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has approached these situations in different ways. The existing literature tends to consider both conflicts in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Rather than compare and contrast the two conflicts in terms of assessing the effectiveness of R2P, the purpose of this paper is to examine why the UNSC authorized a military intervention in Libya, but not in Syria. This question arises out of the notion that similar conditions should elicit the same response. This research will present three main arguments to explain why the UNSC did not authorize the use of force in Syria as they did in Libya. The first is that the variety of actors fighting in Syria makes it difficult for intervention. The second is that the individual interactions between the permanent Security Council members and Syria further complicate intervention. The final argument is that the Security Council is upholding the foundation of the UN in preventing World War III.

scholarly journals Islands of Stability: new conception on the use of force regarding the implementation of protection of civilians

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 431-453
Author(s):  
Graziene Carneiro De Souza
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
New Method ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Stability Concept

This article proposes that the normative context of the use of force is being modified by a new way to implement the Protection of Civilians (PoC). Resolution 2098 of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) created a Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) with an unprecedented mandate to implement the use of force preemptively. In this context, the objective of this paper is to evidence that the FIB’s offensive actions resulted in the emergence of the “Islands of Stability” concept, which represents a new method to implement the PoC. In order to elaborate this method, a review of literature, news papers and official documents was undertaken, as well as interviews with MONUSCO officials. Its outcome is a significant update, adaptation and evolution on the use of force in peace operations that aims to influence the general debate regarding military intervention and PoC. Key Words: Use of force, MONUSCO, FIB, Protection of Civilians, Islands of Stability.Resumo: Este artigo propõe que o contexto normativo sobre o uso da força está sendo modificado por uma nova forma de implementação da Protecção de Civis (PoC). A Resolução 2098 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas criou uma Força de Brigada de Intervenção (FIB) com mandato sem precedentes para implementar o uso da força preventivamente. As ações ofensivas da FIB resultaram na emergência do conceito de Ilhas de Estabilidade, apresentando novo processo da operacionalização da PoC. Isso significa nova atualização, adaptação e evolução do uso da força em operações de paz; e, portanto, influencia o debate geral sobre a intervenção militar e a PoC.Palavras-Chave: Uso da força, MONUSCO, FIB, Proteção de Civis, Ilhas de Estabilidade.

scholarly journals Responsibility To Protect: What For?

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Adelaida Rivera
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
The Military

On March 17th 2011, the United Nations Security Council approved the Resolution 1973 which authorized the use of force in Libya in order to protect civilians from the attacks performed by the state armed forces. The military action by NATO in Libya has resulted in diverse and divided opinions. The recourse of Responsibility to protect appeared later as a measure intended to be implemented in the ongoing conflict in Syria, but after two failed resolutions, it became clear that some UN Security Council members are not willing to repeat the Libyan scenario. This text aims to examine some basic notions of the R2P concept, its application in Libya and the implications of the results after the Libyan case on its possible application in Syria. Should the discussed objectives behind the application of Responsibility to Protect in the Libyan case and its results be determinant on the decision whether this doctrine can be applied in Syria? Is it possible that the mistakes committed in Libya, the atrocities now experienced in Syria and the non-response by the international community could mark the end of the whole concept of Responsibility to Protect? These questions are intended to be discussed in this paper.

11. Use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the United Nations Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years, the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

scholarly journals How Can We Criticize International Practices?

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1014-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schindler ◽  
Tobias Wille
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Practice Theory ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

Abstract In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

The Myth of Protection: Gendering Protection under the Responsibility to Protect in Gaza

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timea Spitka
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Potential Tool

Although international norms on the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ), norms stemming from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the agenda of Women, Peace and Security (wps) have shifted the narrative from a state-centric to a human-centric approach to security, they have failed to intersect in the most difficult contexts. This paper examines the intersections between Pillar iii of R2P, Resolution 1325 and the agenda of wps with a focus on protection in Gaza. Within the Gaza context, all authorities can be seen as failing in their responsibility to protect, however, no steps have been taken toward operationalisation of protection under R2P. Examining protection through a gendered lens provides a critical mirror of strategies of protection as well as a roadmap towards improvement. The article argues that R2P in combination with the agenda of wps provides a potential tool for constructing a consensus prioritising protection of civilians in the most difficult contexts.

scholarly journals Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZOU Keyuan
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe Charter of the United Nations designates the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as one of the principal organs of the United Nations, assuming the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. It has the power to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, to make recommendations, and decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. This article addresses a number of issues concerning how the UNSC Resolutions are enforced at sea in accordance with applicable international law and makes special reference to the circumstances in East Asia, particularly the Korean Peninsula.

scholarly journals How can we criticize international practices?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schindler ◽  
Tobias Wille
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Practice Theory ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

scholarly journals FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE: LEGAL CRITIQUE TO THE “JUS BELLUM JUSTUM” DOCTRINE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION THROUGH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Henrique Jerônimo Bezerra MARCOS ◽  
Gustavo Rabay GUERRA
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Just War Doctrine ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

ABSTRACT Objective: The paper presents a legal analysis of R2P in light of contemporary international law. It questions whether R2P is lawful as a just war (jus bellum justum) doctrine under international law, specifically under the general prohibition for the use of force pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. The paper first analyzes the just war doctrine in light of international law; thereafter, there is a study of the legal framework for the use of force in the United Nations Charter; and, in a third step, the study of the R2P in legal light as a just war doctrine. Methodology: The research is executed through a deductive approach, its scientific objective is exploratory, and its research technique is a bibliographical and documentary survey. The methodological limit is in a legal approach of the subject from a normative perspective, focused on the legal validity of the institute under international law. Results: It is concluded from the study that R2P has legal flaws and does not stand against United Nations Charter regulation on the usage of force, notably the norm that states that the use of force in international relations is an exclusive responsibility of the United Nations Security Council. Contributions: The study shows its pertinence as an endeavor into a strictly legal analysis of a complex and highly political subject of humanitarian interventions. Keywords: Responsibility to protect; humanitarian intervention; just war doctrine; United Nations Security Council. RESUMO Objetivo: O artigo apresenta uma análise jurídica da R2P à luz do Direito Internacional contemporâneo; questiona se a R2P é juridicamente válida como uma doutrina de guerra justa (jus bellum justum) sob o Direito Internacional, especificamente à luz da proibição geral de uso da força de acordo com a Carta das Nações Unidas. Para tanto, o artigo analisa a doutrina da guerra justa à luz do Direito Internacional; em seguida, estuda o marco legal para o uso da força na Carta da ONU; e, em terceiro lugar, estuda a R2P como uma doutrina de guerra justa. Metodologia:A pesquisa é executada através de abordagem dedutiva, seu objetivo científico é exploratório e sua técnica de pesquisa é bibliográfica e documental. O limite metodologia é uma abordagem legal do seu objeto em uma perspectiva normativa com foco na validade legal do instituto à luz do Direito Internacional.Resultados: Conclui-se do estudo que a R2P tem falhas jurídicas e não se coaduna com a normativa da Carta das Nações Unidas sobre o uso da força, notadamente a norma que estabelece que o uso da força nas relações internacionais é uma responsabilidade quase exclusiva do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Contribuições: O estudo mostra sua pertinência por se tratar de análise estritamente legal de um assunto complexo e altamente político que são as intervenções humanitárias. Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade de proteger; intervenção humanitária; doutrina da guerra justa; Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document