Abstract
This article analyzes the geopolitical narratives produced by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States from 15 February through 18 March 2011 as a humanitarian intervention in Libya was debated. We analyzed 146 statements and press releases, as well as official documents including the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), to gauge how the intervention was justified and how it was situated within the broader framework of humanitarianism. We argue that the thresholds for intervention are not well articulated and that the differences between the situation in Libya, which required an intervention, and others such as Bahrain, Darfur, or Syria that did not are unclear. The lack of thresholds and consistency creates a situation in which particular countries can use the cover of humanitarianism to legitimate an effort to remove a troublesome regime.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
