The Western Libya Security Council Resolution

The United Nations fights for humanitarian issues through the use of peaceful dialogue between countries and leaders. The UN's powers of authorising peacekeeping, sanctions and force when absolutely necessary is given to it by the UN charter, an international treaty. They are limited by the fact that they cannot make their resolutions and policies the law, however the important conversations they start and ideas that are shared are influential upon the many powerful leaders who choose to listen.

Basing itself on the fact that one of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.( See attachment 1).

The structure and power of the UN Security Council is a major factor regarding how some states are able to exert power over the UN. For example, any permanent member of the UNSC (China, Russia, the US, Britain or France) can veto any resolution proposed as they please. As a result of this we have seen much needed resolutions been dropped due to permanent members vetoing due to national interests. In the case of the conflict in Syria, both resolutions proposed by the UNSC were vetoed by Russia and China as they went against their national interests. In this way, the permanent five members are certainly more powerful than the UN. Furthermore, states sovereignty imposes limits on the extent to which the UN can protect human rights. States sovereignty can also mean that states can refuse to sign international agreements that are seen as against their national interests. For example, the US’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, the UN does exhibit some power over states. It can authorise the use of force or peacekeepers or economic sanctions against states where internal conflict has occurred. For example, in 2006 the UNSC authorised the use of peacekeeping troops in Sudan in response to the conflict in Darfur. Similarly in 2011, the UNSC authorised the use of force to protect civilians against the attacks of the Gaddafi regime. Conclusively, although the UN has the ability to authorise various

At the end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, the Security Council passed Resolution 687, which set out the terms that Iraq’s leader Suddam Hussein was to comply with. The resolution required the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and required Iraq to submit to a rigorous UN inspection system. Inspections were conducted by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and later the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) throughout the 1990s to the US-led invasion 2003. The UNSC has proved to be an effective legal response to monitoring conflict and maintaining world order as no ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were found after the American invasion in 2003.

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.

In Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, it requires that all members "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Most importantly, member states agree to a broad prohibition against use of force: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'' These words

The current U.S. President, Barack Obama, has continued this humanitarian and moral trend with the use of U.S. military force in Libya and Syria. However, both events are very much different in seeking the approval or consultation by Congress given their political context. In 2011, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, had come under the international spotlight as a major threat to the citizens of Libya. Given Libya’s location centered amongst several Arab states, there was much at stake for U.S. interest. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations also backed the U.S. and other NATO allies’ military

Army to Libya and the operation lasted more than 60 days. The main point is that in order to claim that the War Power Resolution is applicable to an operation, the Army should be introduced into hostilities. President Obama did not want to interfere with the enemy directly to sidestep the War Power Resolution in order to prevent any type of reaction by the Congress that might have prevented the “military assessment” for Libya. This was another sign of ineffectiveness of the War Power Resolution and another evidence that showed it interfered with military strategy. If we look at what happened in Libya, Muammar Gadhafi, the leader of the country, decided to kill all the citizens “house by house, room by room . . . [with] no mercy and no

The war in Darfur materialized at the wrong time for the United States, Norway, and Britain, two of which are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. At the time, they were focused on ensuring the success of the Naivasha negotiations in Sudan. The Naivasha agreement, also known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was an permanent ceasefire agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/ Sudan People’s Liberation Army to end the Second Sudanese Civil War. This was long time coming because the conflict had started all the way back in 1983. The Security Council used the ‘Brahimi principal,’ which states “regional organizations take primary responsibility for the problems in their backyard” to push responsibility on to the A.U. The Brahimi principle The Security Council was glad to give someone else the responsibility of Darfur so they could focus on others tasks at hand.

For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq.

The United States has troops stationed in Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Turkey, and is currently fighting two wars. Another war is not what this country needs. Within the past few weeks, the United States has taken serious military action in Libya. The goal of the United States is to free the Libyan citizens from the tyrannical rule of Moammar Gadhafi. The United States has taken such actions as imposing a no-fly zone over the Libyan air-fields and removing Libya from the Human Rights Counsel, but recently the United States began firing missiles at Libyan tanks and other military weapons. Did the United States go too far this time? Experts of United States’ Foreign Policy feel that President Obama’s actions, or what is being called the

Following the United Nations (UN) supported declaration of independence in 1951, the United States (U.S.) established diplomatic relations with Libya. Due to Libya being an active member of the international community, the U.S. has strategic interests in a stable Libya and to continue indorsing support for a free, democratic Libya (Libya, n.d.). Furthermore, building democratic institutions, protecting the universal rights of all Libyans, promoting accountable and honest government, rebuilding its economy, and establishing security throughout the country are challenges Libya faces. The following paper will discuss Libya in relation to the U.S.’s involvement and continued significance to regional security and U.S. national security (Affairs, 2013). The U.S. has focused on supporting capacity building efforts within Libya’s government institutions, developing civil society and facilitating free and fair elections since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 (Libya, n.d.). Instability in Libya would significantly affect the world’s U.S. based major oil companies invested and operating within Libya. Furthermore, the U.S. has a trade and investment framework agreement with Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, of which Libya is a member to consider if sanctions are once more placed upon Libya (Libya, n.d.). To counter this instability, the U.S. coordinates projects with the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). U.S. targeted assistance to Libya

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

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