Abstract
India voted for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, but abstained from Resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, subsequently criticizing the NATO campaign. This stance provoked much comment within India and among foreign commentators on Indian foreign policy. Some praised it as morally superior to approving military action, which was portrayed by some as Western ‘neo-colonialism’. Others, however, were critical of India’s unwillingness to back intervention in Libya and the principle of the Responsibility to Protect. For the critics, India’s objections to UNSC 1973 merely demonstrated the continued weakness of the foreign policy establishment and its inability to balance power politics and ethical values. This article evaluates these various positions, but argues that while the Libyan episode stimulated an unprecedented amount of comment in India about R2P, it is unlikely that the Indian government or leading Indian commentators will soon shift their positions.
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.
