REVISITING THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: A CRITIQUE OF UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION IN LIBYA

Abstract

The concept of the responsibility to protect, also called R2P, was developed in response to the genocide in Rwanda and the deliberate targeting of civilians in various armed conflict around the world. Since these crises, a series of governmental and non-governmental initiatives have focused on reconciling the traditional notion of state sovereignty with respect for human rights, with the moral imperative to act with force if necessary in the face of core international crimes. In 2000 a Report entitled ‘the responsibility to protect’, was produced. The report sought to establish a set of clear guidelines for determining when intervention is appropriate, what the appropriate channels for approving an intervention are and how the intervention itself should be performed. Based on this principle, the UN Security Council voted in favor of the NATO-led military intervention which brought the Libyan regime under Col Qhadafi to an end in 2011 and left the country in the ruins currently going on there. Against this backdrop, the primary objective of this study is to appraise the doctrine of responsibility to protect as well as the UN backed NATO led intervention in Libya. Toward that end, the following interrelated issues will be addressed: the Responsibility to Protect and its impact in Libya vis-à-vis the Western countries desire for regime change which was the motivating factor that influenced the intervention instead of the much publicized humanitarian needs. In conclusion, the paper concludes that the UN backed intervention was never in the interest of the Libyan people but was used to achieve a long time geopolitical interest of the West. The paper thereafter will offer recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of the Security Council for future humanitarian intervention.