Intervention In Libya Research Articles

Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications

Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications

“Responsibility to Protect” and the BRICS: A Decade after the Intervention in Libya

Abstract “Responsibility to protect” (R2P) emerged as a powerful moral and political norm in 2001 signaling a shift away from traditional state sovereignty to human sovereignty. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 2011 R2P intervention in Libya, however, created controversies giving rise to sharp differences between the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the West over this new humanitarian norm. Major BRICS states officially support R2P to protect humans from mass atrocities but oppose military actions to implement it. This article examines the question why the BRICS states are resistant to R2P military interventions to protect humans at grave risk. In contrast to the general view that sovereignty exclusively lies at the heart of BRICS’ opposition to R2P, this article contends that, in addition to concerns for sovereignty, BRICS’ opposition to R2P military interventions is more accurately explained by the four interrelated factors of ideological rift between BRICS and the West, colonial domination of the Global South by the West, controversies over NATO's Libya episode, and the recent economic rise of the BRICS states. The article concludes that R2P, caught in the crossfires of West versus BRICS’ differing positions, portends little hope for its practical application in future.

Ten Years After Benghazi: Getting Past Groundhog Day

Ten years after the attacks in Benghazi that killed US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Libya is again on the brink of a civil war. The attacks sapped the United States’ willingness to engage on Libya, leaving room for external actors to pursue their own agendas in the country. Four problematic narratives emerged, including one from former president Barack Obama himself, who declared that ‘failing to plan for the day after’ the intervention in Libya was the worst mistake of his presidency. Despite American reluctance to deeply engage in addressing Libya’s political and security disorder, the Biden administration could take several practical steps to help bring stability to a potentially prosperous country. These include limiting foreign interference and sanctioning one of Libya’s most polarising actors, Khalifa Haftar.

INKONSISTENSI DIPLOMASI ISLAM DI DALAM LIGA ARAB

The Arab League is an organization that articulates Islamic messages and norms in the practice of International Relations. The central idea of the Arab League is reflected in the norms to carry out the politics of liberation of Palestima as a community whose existence must be fought for. However, in the context of conflict in the Middle East region especially post Arab Springs, the behavior and policies of the Arab League have received a very sharp spotlight in the practice of International Relations. This article explains the inconsistent practice of Islamic diplomacy in the case of intervention in Libya and Syria, which then results in a decline in the quality of humanity in Syria and Libya. This article finds that the Arab League has violated the norms of Islamic diplomacy such as muamalah bil misli in the form of double standard practices, and the norm of wafa 'bil ahdi in the form of inconsistencies in carrying out basic organizational norms.

The extension of Turkish influence and the use of drones

Turkey has intervened in conflicts in surrounding states with its locally developed drones, which have been the chief factor behind its military success, and has accomplished its goals without drawing unfavorable responses from other powers. The features of drones, low economic and political cost, allowed Turkey to achieve its goals. This article analyzes Turkey’s development of drones and its interventions in Libya, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh, where Turkish drones proved their military effectiveness and diplomatic celerity, earning Turkey a reputation as a reliable ally and a potential defense exporter, which has raised its national pride and confidence in expanding its influence.

Post-international Intervention Libya: The Challenges Against State-Building

The most critical and dangerous prospect for the revolution is that Libyans not only overthrow the Gaddafi regime but also destroy any representation of contemporary power and its center that lacks firm roots in Libyan soil and culture. The revolution and war caused widespread devastation, necessitating a start from scratch. However, due to the Libyan context and situation, this attempt is hampered by numerous impediments related to historical, natural, and geographical contexts to the extent of tribalism and external interference. This has resulted in the emergence of tribal, local, and regional tendencies that are sometimes contradictory but persistent. This makes the process of disarming and integrating militants into state institutions a dangerous endeavor that threatens and impedes the establishment of state institutions necessary for the democratic transition process to succeed and significantly impedes the establishment of the new political system. This article aimed to analyze Libya’s future in the post-international intervention context by looking at the democratic transition and state-building challenges, the impact of the crisis on economic activity and oil production, and weak institutional structures and modernization requirements.

To (or not to) intervene: social constructivist approach to US humanitarian intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria

The significant development in international relations after 1991 and the end of the Cold War is humanitarian intervention. It symbolizes the self-driven evolution of a state's normative structure and conducts in the global system. Theoretical framework, which educates us about the structure and actors of the international system, has been used by international relations experts to attempt to provide an explanation. As a theory of international relations, social constructivism does an excellent job of describing and explaining the phenomenon of humanitarian intervention in world politics. To comprehend humanitarian interventions, this study first grasps how nations' changing interests impact their conduct when intervening in humanitarian causes. It provides information about US engagement in the situations of Libya and Syria. Although the two situations were of a similar type, the US's reasons for intervening were very different. The same is true for the responses of the global community, which varied as a result of various identities and interests. For instance, we see Russia actively opposing US influence in Syria and responding only lukewarmly to US influence in Libya. Why do they behave differently? Constructivists hold that identity influences a state's interests and can also change perception, which results in altered behaviour

UN Security Council Sanctions and Mediation in Libya

Abstract The UN frequently employs sanctions on the same conflicts where it attempts mediation. While both efforts carry a UN stamp, they follow different political logics that are not always coherent with each other: sanctions are enacted by the UN Security Council, while mediation is led by a special representative/envoy of the UN Secretary-General, often on the basis of a Security Council mandate. This article explores two UN interventions in Libya that combined mediation with mandatory sanctions: the conflict leading to the overthrow of the Muammar Qaddafi regime (2011) and the civil war that ensued when the country was split between the first elected parliament and its successor (2014–2015). The Libyan case illustrates that the coherence of mediation and sanctions ultimately depends on the UN Security Council unity of purpose.

R2P and the Use of Force

Abstract This piece examines the place of the use of force in R2P. It shows that a sceptical view about the use of force to protect populations, a view guided by the seemingly ‘endless wars’ of the global ‘war on terror’ and the troubled legacy of intervention in Libya, has become predominant. The principle’s earliest advocates went to considerable lengths to distinguish it from the bad old days of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in part to assuage fears and in part to burnish R2P’s apparent novelty. However, experience shows that in the face of determined perpetrators force, with all the problems that entails, sometimes is necessary to protect from populations. This piece suggests the need to bring the use of force back in to debates about implementing R2P

Evaluating the Legality of Application of Responsibility to Protect in Africa: The Libya Experience

The international community gathered in 2005 and adopted responsibility to protect in paragraph 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document. Few years after this adoption, the international community through the UN Security Council applied the concept of responsibility to protect in the 2011 Libyan intervention. The Resolution 1973 was adopted as a result of Gaddafi’s manifest intention to exterminate the Libyan population. It authorised the member nations and regional organizations to use all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya. Thereafter, the coalition of states went to Libya under the pretext of responsibility to protect and protection of civilians, and as a result the Libyan leader was killed. The killing of Gaddafi generated wide controversy as a result of the manner in which the intervening forces implemented Resolution 1973. It was against this background that this research work set to evaluate the application of responsibility to protect in Africa using the Libyan intervention as a text case. In so doing, the study examines the historical development and content of responsibility to protect, which was introduced in 2001 as a result of the Security Council’s failure to authorize intervention for humanitarian purposes in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. The study aims to investigate whether or not the intervention in Libya was in line with responsibility to protect, and in so doing, the study analyses Resolution 1973 to ascertain whether or not the interveners went beyond mandate. The responsibility to protect is central to the discussion of this research work because Resolution 1973 in its preamble reminded the Libyan authorities of their responsibility to protect civilian populations. The study in analysing Resolution 1973, argues that it would be impossible to enforce civilian protection with Gaddafi in power, and even if some scholars posited that the interveners went beyond mandate in Resolution 1973, the interveners saved many lives which would have been killed by Gaddafi.

Rising Powers and Normative Resistance: China, India, and the Responsibility to Protect

ABSTRACT What explains rising powers’ approach to emerging norms that challenge ontological order? The article uses a controlled comparison of two rising powers, China and India, as they address the responsibility to protect, which reconceives state sovereignty as contingent. Both states rejected the norm at its inception, before diverging as UN Security Council members during norm application in the Libya intervention. China assumed a creative resister role, offering tactical concessions, while using traditional sovereignty norms to renovate norm content. India assumed a norm begrudger role, typified by rhetorical rejection and disengagement from evolving normative discourse, coupled with practical support for the responsibility to protect. These rising powers’ normative roles are shaped by their dual status and differing positions within the UN Security Council social environment.

The Moral Untouchability of the Responsibility to Protect

ABSTRACT The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a doctrine motivated by good intentions. Yet an overriding concern with the successful consolidation of R2P as a norm, as well as the institutionalisation of R2P with academic and policy circles, has led to an excessive focus on the doctrine itself, rather than the atrocities meant to be motivating it. These limitations and shortcomings are examined and subsequently worked through in reference to the 2011 Libyan intervention. It is argued there should be less concern with norm development, and more explicit engagement with the responsibilities that come with supporting the doctrine.

From the White Man’s Burden to the Responsible Saviour: Justifying Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

: In recent years, there has been renewed interest in conceptualising the political nature of human rights as well as intense debate over the precise nature of Western biases in the whole project. Spurred by the fresh renewal of radical theory, a growing body of literature explores the role that racialized power hierarchies have played in the human rights project through the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine. Drawing from critical human rights scholarship, this article explores the way human rights have been employed as a legitimising discourse for justifying military intervention in Libya. In doing so, it illustrates the Eurocentric conceptualisation of power, power hierarchies and subjectivities.

“АРАБСЬКА ВЕСНА” І УЧАСТЬ США В “ГУМАНІТАРНІЙ ІНТЕРВЕНЦІЇ” В ЛІВІЇ

The article examines in detail the attitude of the United States to the “Arab Spring”, issues related to their participation in the “humanitarian intervention” in Libya. In order to better analyze the Obama administration’s approach to the spread of democracy in foreign policy practice, it is necessary to look at how it reacts to events taking place in the context of democratization around the world. After the terror of 2001, new elements of the manifestation and methods of applying the “humanitarian intervention” of the United States are emerging, one of the clearest examples of which is America’s participation in humanitarian intervention in Libya.

Cruising into the Ghibli: Requirements for EU Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

Cruising into the Ghibli: Requirements for EU Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

PUTİN VE MEDVEDEV’İN DIŞ POLİTİKALARININ KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ: SURİYE VE LİBYA ÖRNEĞİ

This article explains the shift in Russia’s foreign policy strategy towards the Middle East. Particularly, it aims to address the question of why Russia supported the UNSC Resolution 1970 towards Libya in 2011 but refused to cooperate with the West in Syria. In this article, it is argued that the West’s use of the authorization of the no-fly zone as a green light for military intervention in Libya paved the way for Russia’s obstinacy in Syria. To test this hypothesis, this article focus on the foreign-policy decision-making mechanism in Russia regarding these two events. In this article two decision-making processes are compared to provide an alternative explanation of Russia’s Middle Eastern policy. This article contributes to the existing literature on Russian foreign policy and Foreign Policy Analysis literature.

Intervention in Libya: The Responsibility to Protect in North Africa. By Karin Wester. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2020. 362p. $99.99 cloth. - Libya’s Fragmentation: Structure and Process in Violent Conflict. By Wolfram Lacher. London: I. B. Tauris, 2020. 285p. $29.95 paper.

Intervention in Libya: The Responsibility to Protect in North Africa. By Karin Wester. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2020. 362p. $99.99 cloth. - Libya’s Fragmentation: Structure and Process in Violent Conflict. By Wolfram Lacher. London: I. B. Tauris, 2020. 285p. $29.95 paper. - Volume 19 Issue 4

Reintegrative shaming in international relations: NATO’s military intervention in Libya

Reintegrative shaming in international relations: NATO’s military intervention in Libya

U.S Democracy Campaign during The Civil War in Libya

The NATO intervention in Libya was one of the most contentious conflict in 2011. The permission given by the UNSC for NATO to intervene in Libya led to a debate that said intervention carried out in Libya was not based on the humanitarian objectives but for US national interest. This situation is strengthened by several NATO activities that show their involvement is for the US interest. Some of the US interest are protecting their territorial sovereignty from terrorism, oil interest and democracy campaign or ideology. Ideology is counted as their long-range or important interest. Previous studies have explained the other US interest in Libya such as the oil interest and terrorism. However, there are not many studies that precisely portray the importance of liberalism in this operation. Therefore, this research is questioning on the importance of democracy campaign during operation by NATO for the US. The main argument in this study is that US did not only launch the operation for humanitarian reason but for its own interest and that democracy liberal ideology interest hold the same importance as the other interest of US.

Looking for the Impossible: The Futile Search for a Balanced Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention

Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.