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

CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL CONCLUSION

International law, including human rights law, humanitarian law and international customary law is primarily applicable to states rather than to individuals. Consequently, these international rules generally become a source of domestic legal obligations for a state's officials and of domestic rights for that nation's citizens. In the beginning of writing this thesis of ending the post graduate study, the researcher was very skeptical about the legitimacy of international intervention in Libya by NATO in 2011 but at the end of this conclusion the researcher will let you know if the researcher is still skeptical or whether the case study has changed his opinion. The main research questions posed by researcher was: «Does the concept of Libyan international intervention by NATO in 2011 comply and evaluated on the basis of theoretical frameworks of 1973 UN resolution in practice based on principle of «Just War» ethics and consequentiality ethics? Wasn't it propelled by geostrategic and economic motives? As it has been said earlier, the researcher was very critical before studying the case and had two presumptions related to the research question.

In this conclusion the researcher discusses those presumptions and answer to the main research questions by testifying the hypothesis, the researcher summarizes the findings of precedent chapters and at the end of this chapter makes suggestions and recommendations so far.

5.1. Summary and Findings of the Precedent Chapters

The introductory chapter and chapter one fixed the context, aims, goals and the expectations a work of this magnitude. This Chapter presents the introduction general of the study by discussing the background and the significance of the study.

In the second chapter titled Historical Background on Humanitarian Intervention in International Law deals with literature review, the researcher focused on humanitarian intervention backgrounds. The researcher defined some key concepts such as armed conflict, sovereignty, etc. and reconsidered the principles of public international law, especially the principle of humanitarian intervention and the principle of sovereignty of States, interference and the principle of non-intervention and at the end discussed the use of force in international relations and humanitarian intervention.

The chapter three focused on the critical analysis of the humanitarian intervention by NATO in Libya. In this chapter, the researcher analyzed the foundations of the intervention, the absence of indisputable legal basis and in fine, exceptions to the principle of non-intervention. In this regard, the researcher analytically examined the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to the rules of current international law. Based on the principle of sovereignty, the researcher noticed that the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the interpretation given by the doctrinal tend to legitimize an armed humanitarian intervention. Admittedly, the UN Charter provides for exceptions, but in no event shall give right to a State to intervene unilaterally in the territory of another State. The only exception allowed is the use of force authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations in the context of collective security. According to the provisions of the Charter, only the Security Council can qualify a serious violation of human rights and allow armed intervention. Outside the United Nations system no use of force is authorized, and therefore, legal. Thus, the intervention of NATO in Libya is legitimate because based on the protection of endangered civilian population. This intervention was implemented to test the foundations of the international system. It occurred against the Government of a State in order to position its powers and if necessary to overthrow Qadaffi. Consequently, armed intervention applies to the political power of the Libyan State is not appropriate.

In addition, the researcher had the opportunity to see the authors support the right of humanitarian intervention to match its implementation of certain conditions. None of them considers this right of humanitarian armed intervention as a discretionary competence that there are violations of human rights in the territory of another State. A researcher saw also that despite all of the content and the definition of this right, it remains unclear and may be extremely hazardous because several motivations can be hidden behind an intervention that the researcher qualified misused humanitarian.

Furthermore, especially in the chapter four of this thesis, the researcher attempt to set out the mechanism to insure neutral and fair humanitarian intervention in the future generation where the researcher elaborated the following guidelines:

Primo, it can be seen from the researcher extensive consideration and analysis of the legal framework pertaining to military intervention; it should not be taken lightly and without a through consideration of the legal position, the benefits and drawbacks of intervention, operational capacity and planning issues. However, in pressing cases of humanitarian catastrophe, states need to be willing to intervene quickly and without undue hesitation. It is important when considering intervention that the intervening state gives due regard to the impact that this could have on the ground, versus the impact that not intervening would have.

Secundo, the international community when intervenes shall be bound by both the UN Charter and customary international law. Any uses of force taken out with the scope of these legal rules are prima facie illegal under international law. Due to these rigorous rules in international law on the use of force, there is little scope for application of humanitarian intervention legally at the present time. However, it is still seen as legitimate in several circumstances, such as egregious and systematic human rights violations.

Tertio, the researcher finds that humanitarian intervention should occur without United Nation Security Council authorization when it is at last resort. It is this Centre's opinion that the «Responsibility to Protect» doctrine could provide a foundation on which a legal right to intervene in states for humanitarian purposes could be developed and established in international law. Whilst, as has been discussed, the current conception of Responsibility to Protect does not provide scope for intervention out with the Charter, the researcher consider that it should do and that the intervening countries could take the lead in advancing a legal basis for intervention within the Responsibility to Protect framework.

Quartos, as well as intervening in the name of humanitarian intervention, states can also intervene in the pursuit of self-defence. The right of self-defence is not disputed in international law. As has been explored, pre-emptive self-defence is a more disputed right, but in appropriate circumstances namely, serious security threats, it could be seen to be a legitimate form of intervention. Intervening in pursuit of non-state actors following terrorist activity is becoming more and more accepted in international law, particularly following the accumulation of events doctrine.

Finally, it is important that when deciding to intervener States also gives considerable thought to the consequences that intervention could have, as well as exit strategies. Part of the Blair Doctrine^276(*) encapsulated the fact that states have to be prepared to go the long haul when intervening and shouldn't just consider the short-term implications. States suffer serious problems in the aftermath of any type of intervention and it is the responsibility of the intervening state to help rebuild. This is important for ensuring that the conflict does not reignite at a later date.

* ²⁷⁶ R. Rozoff, Thousand Deadly Threats: Third Millennium NATO,Western Businesses Collude On New Global Doctrine, 2 October 2009, p. 121.