Libyan Crisis Research Articles

Migrants in Countries in Crisis: The Experiences of Ghanaian and Nigerien Migrants during the Libyan Crisis of 2011

Using the experiences of Ghanaian and Nigerian migrants who were implicated in the 2011 Libyan crisis as a case study, this paper highlights the importance of examining micro-level factors in explaining migration decision-making processes. It therefore challenges the uncritical use of macro-level factors as exogenous ‘root causes of migration especially in developing country contexts. Adopting mainly qualitative approaches among seventy-five key informants from six distinct categories, the study finds that migration culture, household livelihood aspirations, geographical propinquity, the existence of social networks and migrant smuggling rings motivate migrations to Libya. The paper also challenges scholarship on the 2011 Libyan crisis that treats the experiences of sub-Saharan African (SSA) migrants in the country as an undifferentiated group. The paper concludes that within a developing country context, the political economy of the origin country contributes to the establishment, over time, of a migration culture especially among youth who feel trapped in waithood and are unable to realize basic socio-cultural and economic markers in life. The paper recommends the regionalization of evacuation and repatriation programmes to facilitate the timely extraction of trapped migrants from countries in crisis.

Pragmatic eclecticism, neoclassical realism and post-structuralism: reconsidering the African response to the Libyan crisis of 2011

This article analyses the role of the African Union (AU) during the Libyan crisis of 2011. It addresses the question of why the AU has not played a central conflict manager role in that crisis. Inspired by pragmatic eclecticism, we take a theoretical detour to answer this question. Through a neoclassical realist and post-structuralist lens, we provide a novel eclectic reconsideration of the crisis response and we also highlight shared ground between both perspectives. Our theoretical and empirical discussion moves along the categories ‘primacy of power’, ‘discourses’ and ‘leader images’. We highlight the ability of dominant powers to influence the unfolding of events with material forms of power but also through immaterial ones such as the advancement of a dominant discourse on a cosmopolitan liberal order related to the responsibility-to-protect.

Cosmopolitanism, Responsibility to Protect and the Libya Intervention: A Reassessment

Protection of civilians has remained problematic either when it occurs or when it does not. And this has generated heated debate among several theoretical schools, with grave consequences for international relations theorising. The Libya crisis in 2011 represents one of those cases that has led to arguments and counter-arguments, particularly on justification, agency, means and outcomes of the intervention. This study interrogates as to what extent cosmopolitanism shaped the need to protect civilians in the Libya crisis, the successes, challenges and the consequences of cosmopolitanism on the Libya intervention. The study argues that even though cosmopolitanism bears a large part in informing the need to protect civilians in Libya, the way and manner the intervention turns out to be poses a serious challenge to cosmopolitanism. Hence, there is the need for cosmopolitanism to think beyond justifying intervention to monitoring actors involved, institutions, intervention processes as well as the post-intervention era, especially in terms of rebuilding.

Chair's note: opening access to our resources and our research

AbstractThis second annual note on the Society's activities outlines how we have responded to the ongoing crisis in Libya and our connected inability to work in the region by developing our research activities and facilities in the UK. Our most advanced initiative is our project to catalogue the Society's archive and makes its contents available online. Similarly, we are exploring how we might promote our library and encourage greater awareness and use of this unique resource. Finally, we are providing an increasing range of our books and field reports in Open Access formats via our website. All of this aims to make our distinctive resources more easily available to members, and to wider research communities in the UK and overseas.

Leading Beyond Civilian Power: Germany’s Role Re-conception in European Crisis Management

In 2014, Germany’s foreign policy elite promoted a new international role. It promised more leadership in foreign and security policy, in line with the country’s international responsibility and firmly embedded in the European Union. This article applies sociological role theory and foreign policy analysis to review the origins and implications of this role re-conception. The empirical focus is on Germany’s role in crisis management vis-à-vis Libya and Syria. The analysis shows that the 2011 Libyan crisis fuelled existing intra-role tensions between multilateralism and military restraint. Role re-conception was an attempt to overcome tensions while satisfying international and domestic audiences. In practice, there has been a gradual adaptation based on a more flexible interpretation of military restraint. However, Germany’s ability to project leadership beyond the confines of the civilian power role remains limited and depends on the situation-specific balance between domestic and external expectations.

How russian intervention in syria redefined the right to protect in armed conflict

The use of military force to forestall humanitarian crisis remains a controversial issue in international law. This strategy is considered antithetical to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the host country. This legal quandary emanated in 1998 after NATO launched a series of airstrikes against the Yugoslavian forces under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This legal conundrum prompted the United Nations to craft comprehensive legal principles to determine the parameters of foreign interventions in armed conflict. The objective was realised in 2005 after the UN adopted the Right to Protect (R2P) as means of resolving humanitarian crisis. This doctrine intended to harmonise the foreign intervention in light of the shortcomings of unilateral humanitarian intervention. However, the abysmal failure in resolving the Libyan crisis exposed its soft underbelly as tool for perpetuating regime change against unpopular leaders. Subsequently, when Security Council proposed similar remedy for Syrian conflict, Russia strenuously objected and advocated for a political and diplomatic solution. This geopolitical gridlock prompted the divided council to adopt a different scenario in dealing with the Syrian conflict with the west supporting the rebels while Russia stood by Assad. This prompted Assad to appeal for assistance from Russia in counteracting ISIS and rebel forces that threatened to depose his government. In 2017 President Putin announced the success of the Russian intervention and called for peace talks among the various warring factions. As such Russia had realised the humanitarian objective behind R2P while respecting the sovereignty of Syria.

Incidencia del problema de seguridad libio en la actual crisis migratoria

El siguiente artículo es un estudio de caso, desde la perspectiva clásica de seguridad que tuvo como objeto determinar cómo la crisis en la Libia pos Gaddafi ha sido un factor determinante en el aumento de los movimientos migratorios entre el norte de África y Europa desde finales del año 2011 hasta el 2016, generando problemas humanitarios, de refugiados y de seguridad. Este convulsionado país es punto de partida y de tránsito poblacional hacia las demás naciones del continente africano y europeo debido a la ausencia de una autoridad central reconocida, la fragmentación del país y la profundización de la cuestión tribal, que impiden la reorganización de un gobierno que ejerza un control más preciso y efectivo tanto enlas fronteras como en las poblaciones migrantes.

Forgotten war: A crisis deepens in Libya but where are the cameras?

Perhaps no major political or humanitarian disaster is as overlooked as the ongoing crisis in Libya. For example, although the New York Times in September 2017 published a total of seven articles mentioning Libya, only one of them touched on the violence ripping it apart. Even the Times’ gesture merely highlighted the latest permutation of the US government’s foreign military decisions.

Responsibility to Protect and the International Military Intervention in Libya in International Law: What Went Wrong and What Lessons Could Be Learnt from It?

The need to respond to the unfolding situation of mass atrocity crimes has become the subject of a longstanding discussion in international law, with no success in reaching an agreement on the legal status of such a right to respond. The use of coercive measures to protect endangered people remains one of the most challenging aspects of contemporary international law. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was introduced to respond to the grave cases of massacres, but this notion has remained more in the realm of political rhetoric rather than in international law. However, the notion of R2P was invoked by the states leading international intervention in Libya. This article aims to present a critique of the application and interpretation of R2P as a normative framework, with a focus on the complementary responsibility of the international community in the face of the humanitarian crisis in Libya and the way military intervention was carried out. Drawing on the lessons learnt from the international intervention in Libya, this article provides an assessment of the UN resolutions that authorised the military intervention in Libya and the conduct of the coalition partners prior to, during and in the aftermath of the intervention and suggests the manner in which this normative framework could be developed to help the international community to shoulder its responsibility for the protection of people, without undermining the core of international legal framework in the future.

Civil–military relations and organisational preferences regarding the use of the military in Chinese foreign policy: insights from the debate on MOOTW

ABSTRACTThis article analyses the positions of the Chinese civilian leaders and military elites on Military Operations Other Than War in order to shed light on their preferences about the use of the armed forces in foreign policy between the late 1990s and the early 2010s. Over time, a significant divergence developed between civilians and soldiers until 2011, when the Libyan crisis happened. The study also prompts important considerations about our understanding of civil–military relations in China and future role of the People’s Liberation Army as a tool of statecraft in foreign policy.

Problem os security of Algeria, in the light oh the libyan crisis

Problem os security of Algeria, in the light oh the libyan crisis

The Nature of the Libyan Crisis and Forthcoming Election

The Nature of the Libyan Crisis and Forthcoming Election

Peacebuilding and Statebuilding in Libya: An Analysis on the Role of the European Union

Abstract The Libyan crisis is the largest and closest crisis on the southern borders of the EU. It is therefore reasonable that the stabilization of this country and the engagement of international relations and partnership with an independent and effective government of Libya is a central point of the EU’s foreign policy since the outbreak of the crisis in 2011. The consolidation of peace in Libya is of primary importance not only because of political and economic reasons. The engagement with Libya is essential for the EU even to strengthen its role as global actor in the field of foreign and security policy. Finally, the Libyan crisis is closely connected with the migration emergency that is weakening European political cohesion. The purpose of this article is thus to carry out a legal analysis on the role of the EU in promoting peace/state-building in Libya, to make some considerations on the main lesson learned.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force: An Assessment of the Just Cause and Last Resort Criteria in the Case of Libya

ABSTRACTThere is a widespread assumption that, given the imminent threat of mass atrocities against the Libyan civilians – especially in Benghazi – and in the absence of non-military alternatives, military action against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi was a justified and necessary response. This paper challenges this widespread assumption. It argues that on the eve of NATO-led military intervention, there was no ‘clear evidence’ to suggest that the Libyan regime was on the verge of committing mass atrocities against civilians. This research also documents the range of political and diplomatic options open to the international community to engage with Gaddafi, all of which were sidetracked in favour of military action. Despite the brutality of Gaddafi’s rule, military intervention in Libya did not meet the Responsibility to Protect’s (R2P) ‘just cause’ and ‘last resort’ criteria. Far from being a successful application of R2P’s most coercive pillar, the Libyan case was a manifest misapplication of R2P's military component. An objective analysis of the Libyan crisis during February and March 2011 should have prevented the use of military force.

The European Union (EU) Defence Collaboration and the Libyan Crisis: Implications on EU’s Interventionism

This study analyses the controversy and decidedly mixed views surrounding the EU defence collaboration in the 21stCentury. It investigates on the 21st Century challenges faced by the EU in its defence collaboration and itsimplications on interventionism. The EU defence collaboration was initially developed by historically fractiousWestern European states in the late 1940s as a response to growing threats posed by the Soviet Union. The EUdefence collaboration through-out the 90s showed some commendable level of unity which has since taken aparadigm shift in the 21st Century. Thus, the EU defence collaboration is deteriorating and needs to be revitalizedbefore the situation goes out of hand. Primary data analysis was used to solicit relevant data and thematic analysiswas used to analyse data obtained. The findings showed that, there is lack of unity of purpose among member statesin carrying out their defence mandates, lack of commitment by member states to meet their financial obligationsrequisite for effective and efficient defence collaboration and lack of trust among member states as the majorlimitations to the effective defence collaboration as member states are skeptical of each other’s intentions. Hence,after a critical analysis of the data analysed, this research proposes that the EU should adopt sterner measures toensure that member states meets their financial obligations and that the EU should be consistent in its policies inorder to fulfil its mandates and obligations.

Chair's note: working around the crisis in Libya

AbstractThis is the first in a series of Chair's notes in Libyan Studies. We hope that future notes will address easier topics and more straightforward success, but for now we think it is important to communicate what we are doing given the difficult circumstances of Libya today. We trust that this report is useful, and we welcome any feedback.

Capacity, legitimacy or hegemony? A multi-tier explanation for NATO’s involvement in the Libya crisis

Although numerous regional (security) organisations have implemented UNSC-authorised military operations, we do not yet know which considerations prevail in the decision to work through a particular organisation. This article introduces a framework consisting of a capacity, legitimacy and hegemony logic for explaining the selection of a regional organisation. The article takes a rational-institutionalist approach, suggesting that analysis should primarily focus on the cost-benefit analyses of states. It applies the framework to NATO’s involvement in the Libya crisis (2011). Using insights from policy documents and 31 elite interviews, it shows that thoroughly explaining NATO’s involvement is only possible by taking into account all three logics.

The African Union’s Mediation Mandate and the Libyan Conflict (2011)

ABSTRACTThe African Union’s mediation mandate for the Libya crisis of 2011 derived from the organization’s Constitutive Act and the United Nations Charter. The African Union activated this constitutional mandate by designing a roadmap to end the crisis peacefully. However, the roadmap’s incompatibility with the UN Security Council mandate on the use of force and its lack of clarity on the future of Muamar Gaddafi discredited it in the eyes of the rebels and the United Nations. The African Union obtained a mandate to mediate from Gaddafi but not from the rebels, and its mediation proved ill-designed to deal with the crisis. These factors contributed to the failure of the mediation effort.

Anatomy of the Libyan Crisis

Anatomy of the Libyan Crisis

Obama’s leadership style: enabling transatlantic allies in Libya and Mali

This article assesses President Obama’s transatlantic leadership style with regard to foreign crises and it contrasts it with the style of the previous Bush administration. It argues that the Obama administration exercises what we call enabling leadership, which implies that the US does lead, but that it does not feel the need to project ‘leadership from the front’. The article first analyses the diplomatic aspect of leadership by focusing on the ‘speaking order’ among the United States and three of its core allies, namely the United Kingdom, France and Canada. It presents a computer-assisted content analysis of the 482 official statements issued by these four states in response to the crisis in Libya in 2011 and Mali in 2012–2013. The paper then performs a detailed analysis of the financial and military contributions of the US and its allies to confront these crises. It provides qualitative and quantitative evidence suggesting that the Obama administration consciously adopted enabling leadership, a strat...