The Responsibility to Protect And International Intervention: A Case Study Of Libya

The responsibility to protect people against international crimes was introduced to international law scholarship after the endorsement of this newly evolving concept in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document by the UN General Assembly. The approval of the possibility of military intervention in the case of sovereign states being unable or unwilling to bear their primary responsibility to protect their own people has become a matter of controversy ever since. The cornerstone of this controversy resides in two issues. First is the positive obligation of the international community to coercively encounter perpetrations of international crimes. Second is how military intervention, as a naturally destructive phenomenon, can be conducted to save people to the degree possible and cause less harm. Moreover, apart from coercive measures, there is a less appreciated aspect of this concept that needs to be scrutinised. The non-coercive measure of the application of the International Criminal Court jurisdiction in the case of responsibility to protect situations, although it seems less political, its contribution to the promotion of this concept is deeply contested. The Libyan uprising and the prompt military intervention to save threatened Libyans by the international community in 2011 were accompanied by reference of the case of Libya to the ICC through Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, both of which were pursued on the basis of the trajectory of responsibility to protect in international law. This study, as the first legal appreciation of responsibility to protect in the case of Libya, explores whether the case of Libya was a case of responsibility to protect. If the answer is positive, then was the application of both coercive and non-coercive measures appropriate to the principal promise of this concept? Furthermore, if there were any shortcomings in the application of the measures, concerning the aftermath of intervention, what legal lacunas exist that are still in need of attention? Finally, the study at hand attempts to propose certain legal improvements for the better application of the complementary responsibility of the international community in implementing the promise of responsibility to protect.