Nato State Practice Of Libya

The Italian occupation of Libya is an often-overlooked period of time in the history of Africa colonization by western powers. The Italians were as brutal as any other nation in their nation during their reign and justified it with orientalist rhetoric.

Not only was the AFP 's response a legal one, but also a non-legal one. A major operation was then undertaken

In a excerpt from the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) that was signed by United States, Canada, and ten nations of Western Europe in 1948 states that

The efficiency of humanitarian intervention is normative because of people having different views on the output and the unlikeliness of every one being pleased by the new regime therefore it is very hard to affirm the real results of the intervention. In 2011, a group of countries intervened during the Libyan civil war, which lead to the abolition of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime. The Operation Unified Protector by NATO was partly successful because they achieved to kill the dictator on 20th October, but partly ineffective because the standards of living in Libya have not increased and the state is facing a lack of government’s ruling. This case study supports the statement that HI could be an abandoned project as it is not always favourable to everyone.

There are a lot of differences of the education system in the schools between United States and in comparison Libya.

At the time of the attack, Libya was in a state of chaos and need for help. In 2011, a civil war in Libya was occurring. Numerous people were in an effort to overthrow the leader of Libya, Gaddafi. The people that were rebelling were militants who fought along Al-Qaeda, former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and jihadists that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. To help the men that were trying to coup d'état, the United States began to send weapons over, even though western counterterrorism officials worried that the weapons would later be used for future terrorist attacks. In addition to sending weapons, the United States deployed analysts from America’s Delta Forceware to teach the rebels about weapons and different tactics. After the end of the civil war, the US State Department, including US Ambassador Stevens, decided to stay in Libya. They remained in Libya to identify and collect arms used in war, to secure Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles, and to train Libya’s new intelligence service. Dozens of CIA operatives were in Libya at the time of the attack because they were monitoring a couple of suspected Al-Qaeda members.

Therefore the very act of being in Libya with the allied forces, whether we were staring down the sights of an M4 at them or firing rockets from drones, we were in opposition to the Libyan military, and thus involved in hostilities. The Obama administration’s argument that our level of involvement did not qualify as the hostilities referred to in the War Powers resolution is not valid. Based on the definition of hostilities, we were definitely within the parameters of the War Powers Resolution. That makes Presidents Obama’s decision to ignore the 60 day limit a huge violation of the War Powers Act.

The U.S. Constitution allows the president and Congress to have big responsibilities on their military action, but there have been many debates how their war powers begin and the end has. The administration of Obama chose to make a decision in August 2013 to look for congressional authority to have a military strike in Syria. They wanted this for the use of the chemical weapons. This has caused a new debate on the need for the president to request approval. In the past, the administration's major military, participating in NATO air strikes in 2011 against Libya was informed that the congressional approval was not needed from the military because the operation for constitutional purposes was not for war. Obama's actions were in favor of

“The Obama administration has sanctioned at least forty-one CIA missile strikes in Pakistan”(Mayer). The attacks have killed an estimate of 26,538 people who have mostly been children and innocent bystanders. In 2011, Obama intervened, and waged war in Libya and sent US troops without congressional authorization. Obama received negative responses that argued that his decisions were not aligned with Congress's War Powers Act. Obama believed the operation followed the guidelines of the act as he notified Congress within 48 hours along with the 60 day period he had before removing US troops. In a report written by lawmakers from both political parties on the legality of the war they stated “because U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution, the deadlines for congressional approval or force withdrawal do not apply”

As we delve deeper in to the situation, it becomes evident that negotiations were close to being met; however, they failed due to NATO “military annex” (Gibbs). Once the negotiation agreements failed, the US sided with the Albanians and proceeded to attack the Serbians. In their attack, the US used it superior technology (planes) to gain an advantage over the Serbs. Rather than constantly sending men in to harm’s way, the US released a series of air raids to flush out the Serbians. Now, from reading this one may think that the US fully achieved its goal by flushing out the Serbians which they did, but there is more as well. According to Dr. Grant Hammond, the US can say that they met their “goal” by purging Kosovo of the Serbians; however, “can’t say [they] “won” because [they] did not accomplish the established goals. As stated by President Bill Clinton, these [goals] were “to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO’s purpose so

In President Barack Obama’s speech addressing the action taken in Libya, he said that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to "our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests" (Morici). To save the collapsing rebellion, air attacks had to target Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, motorized columns, and government installations (Hanson). The problem that Congress faces is the question of whether unilateral action is constitutional. Unilateral action

The air war in North Africa highlighted the gap in US air doctrine’s emphasis on exclusive strategic bombing. Tactical airpower

     UN and NATO are involved in many of the problems in the world today. Both the UN and NATO have been actively involved in Kosovo. In recent years, the UN has been trying to keep peace in Central African Republic. The UN sent peacekeepers to Central African

How did the historical facts change Peacekeeping operations before and after the cold war? History

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will