The prospect of international intervention legitimacy: case study of 2011 libyan armed conflict

• DECLARATION
  
• CERTIFICATE
  
• DEDICATED
  
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  
• QUOTE
  
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
• ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
  
• CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
  
  • 1.1. Short Introduction
    
  • 1.2. Statement of Problem
    
  • 1.3. Research Questions
    
  • 1.4. Hypothesis
    
  • 1.5. Research Objectives
    
  • 1.6. Significance of this Study
    
  • 1.7. Research Methodology
    
  • 1.8. Scope of Study
    
  • 1.10. The Structure of the Research
    
• CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
  
  • 2.1. Introduction
    
  • 2.2 War or Armed Conflict
    
  • 2.2.1. International Armed Conflict (IAC)
    
  • 2.2.2. Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIAC)
    
  • 2.3. Sovereignty in International Norms
    
  • 2.3.1. Sovereignty Characterizations under International Law
    
  • 2.3.2 Relationship between Sovereignty and Competence
    
    • 2.3.2.1 Typology of Sovereignties
      
      • 2.3.2.1.1 Sovereignty of Divine Law
        
      • 2.3.2.1.2 Royal Sovereignty
        
      • 2.3.2.1.3 Popular Sovereignty and National Sovereignty
        
  • 2.4 Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello
    
  • 2.4.1. Jus Ad Bellum
    
  • 2.4.2. Jus in Bello
    
  • 2.5. Principles Governing International Intervention
    
  • 2.5.1. Humanitarian Intervention and Principle of Sovereignty of States
    
  • 2.5.1.1. Humanitarian Intervention
    
    • 2.5.1.1.1. Content of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law
      
  • 2.5.1.2 The Principle of Sovereignty of States under International Law
    
    • 2.5.1.2.1. Application of the Principle
      
    • 2.5.1.2.2 Internal Sovereignty
      
    • 2.5.1.2.3. External Sovereignty
      
    • 2.5.1.2.4. Limits and Exceptions to the Principle of Sovereignty
      
  • 2.5.2. Interference and Non-Interference Principle
    
  • 2.5.2.1 Content of the Principle Non Interference
    
  • 2.5.2.1.1. Limitations to the Principle of Non-Intervention
    
  • 2.5.3. The Use of Force in International Relations and Humanitarian Intervention
    
  • 2.5.3.1 The Doctrinal View in the Favor of Humanitarian
    
  • 2.5.3.2 The Other Factors of Determining the Humanitarian Intervention
    
• CHAPTER THREE: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVENTION OF NATO IN LIBYA
  
  • 3.1. Introduction
    
  • 3.2. Legal Basis of Analysis of International Intervention in Libya of 2011
    
  • 3.2.1. The International Moral and Human Solidarity Doctrine
    
  • 3.2.2. The Ideology of Human Rights behind the Libyan Intervention of 2011
    
  • 3.3.2.1. Conditions for the Legitimization of the Libyan Intervention
    
  • 3.2.2.2. Lack of Indisputable Legal Basis in Regard of Libyan Intervention
    
    • 3.2.2.2.1. Analysis of Article 2§4 in regard Libyan Intervention
      
    • 3.2.2.2.2. The Discrepancy of UN Charter in Regard of Libyan Intervention
      
      • 3.2.2.2.2.1 The Rights of Interference under the Different Doctrinal View
        
      • 3.2.2.2.2.2. The Different View of UNSC Resolution in Regard of International Intervention
        
      • 3.2.2.2.2.3. The Principle of No Use of Force under Regional Instrument
        
      • 3.2.2.2.2.4. The Prohibition of Use of Force under Jurisprudential Provision
        
  • 3.3. Exceptions to the Principle of Non-Intervention
    
  • 3.3.1. Operations Based on the UNSC Resolutions
    
  • 3.3.1.1 Risk of Armed Conflict
    
  • 3.3.1.2 Violations of Human Rights as a Threat to the Peace and Security
    
    • 3.3.1.2.1 The Mechanisms of Collective Security
      
    • 3.3.1.2.2 The Right of Humanitarian Intervention
      
  • 3.3.2. Operations Based on the Consent of the State: Intervention Sought or Accepted
    
• With regard to the consent of the Victim State, it was already noted that some armed interventions have been justified by a call upon the authorities of the State on whose territory the operation took place. It is possible that armed intervention intends to protect a part of the population affected by the violations by armed groups that are beyond the control of the Government in place. But this armed intervention cannot be legitimate if the central power of the State on whose territory the operation didn't seek foreign military assistance.
  
  • 3.3.4. A Strictly Humanitarian and non-Discriminatory Intervention
    
  • 3.4.1. Violation of Jus Ad Bellum Principle in the Regard of Libyan Intervention
    
  • 3.4.2. Violation of Jus in Bell Principle in regard of Libyan Intervention
    
• CHAPTER FOUR: MECHANISMS TO INSURE NEUTRAL AND FAIR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
  
• In international law, the principle of nonintervention, for example the right of every Sovereignty State to conduct its affairs without external interference is a universally applicable customary principle. Following a counter-interpretation which is extensive and not a legal concept, the international stage often appears today as a world of multifaceted interference. If the concept of interference is often used well beyond its legal dimension in the field of humanitarian action, it also gave rise to theoretical construction that assert itself as right in contradiction with the customary principle of non intervention.
  
  • 4.1. Effective Enforcement of Equality Principle to end up Geostrategic Motives in Humanitarian Interventions
    
  • 4.1.1. The Hidden Geostrategic
    
  • 4.1.1.1. The Franco-British Expedition: The Affirmation of an Imperial Policy in State of Emergency
    
  • 4.1.2. Enforcing the Equal Treatment
    
    • g. and nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.
      
    • But this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
      
  • 4.1.2.1. Equality, a Constant in International Law
    
  • 4.1.2.2 The Principle of Sovereign Equality
    
    • 10. A Political Meaning
      
    • 20. A Legal Meaning
      
  • 4.1.2.3. The Principle of Equality of Peoples
    
  • 4.2. Advocacy for New Rules Governing Humanitarian Action/ Intervention
    
  • 4.2.1. The Law of the Use of Force
    
  • 4.2.1.1. Humanitarian Intervention
    
  • 4.2.1.1. Legality versus Legitimacy
    
  • 4.2.1.2. Pre-Emptive Self Defence
    
  • 4.2.2. Objectives and Consequences of Military Intervention
    
  • 4.2.2.2. Consequences of a Military Intervention
    
  • 4.3. Occupation and Exit Strategies
    
• CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL CONCLUSION
  
  • 5.1. Summary and Findings of the Precedent Chapters
    
  • 5.2. Test of Hypothesis
    
  • 5.2.1. First Hypothesis: «International intervention in Libya by NATO of 2011 does not comply with the 1973 UN Security Council resolution»
    
    • As general acceptance, States are sovereign and any interference in the internal affairs of a State cannot be tolerated because this will be qualified as a violation of the principle of non-interference. However, during the 2005 World Summit, each Member States of U.N have taken the responsibility to protect their civilians from violations of human rights. It was the prerogative of each State to protect its populations from human rights violations. And if the later failed to protect them, the international community through the Security Council could therefore use all means, even coercive if necessary to maintain international peace and security. It is where the doctrine of the responsibility to protect stems came from.
      
  • 5.2.2. Second Hypothesis: «International intervention in Libya by NATO of 2011 was for political purpose which led to the negative humanitarian outcomes»
    
    • The international intervention in Libya by NATO reveals the weakness and shortcoming in the international legal system of collective security. This resort to use of force in Libya by NATO was primarily motivated by the NATO interest. Those tricking interest of NATO in Libya was based on geostrategic hidden, the Franco-British expenditure and American economical and Political will. The researcher noted that the intervention in Libya by NATO caused some violation of international law consider by it's as jus cogens. For instance, NATO has violated the different law providing the means and warfare of war which led to the negative humanitarian outcomes. As it has been seen in precedent chapters, the researcher pointed out that international intervention in Libya of 2011 was for different reasons (e.g. political reason, economical reasons etc.) and had the negative humanitarian outcome.
      
  • 5.3. Suggestions and Recommendation
    
  • 5.3.1. Recommendation to the UN Security Council
    
  • 5.3.2. Recommendation to the UN Members and to the International Community
    
  • 5.3.3. Recommendation to the Intervener State or Organization
    
  • 5.4. Contribution of this Dissertation in the Area of Research
    
  • 5.5. Scope for Further Researcher
    
• BIBLIOGRAPHY