This essay issues itself with offering a normal framework to grasp the results of the Duty to Protects (R2P) language on its skill to be accepted and the motion this engenders. The speculation with which I’m continuing is that R2P’s non-political language facilitates its acceptance for pillar three measures by a given viewers however hides the political character at R2P’s core. The dialogue of the acceptance of R2P measures might be reliant upon the usage of securitisation concept. Within the following work, I’ll first focus on my two major ideas, R2P and securitisation, with a abstract of the necessary literature on the 2 subjects. That is important because the origins of R2P are essential to understanding what it goals to cope with, the way it needs to take action, and the way it’s distinct from humanitarian intervention. It’s also important to debate the origins, and subsequent revisions, of securitisation concept as this might be a key half for analysing how threats are articulated, and accepted, as requiring the measures from pillar three. The varied revisions I’ll introduce to the unique Copenhagen College (CS) framework of securitisation will assist to make the continuing work extra empirical and in depth as to the method surrounding R2P, and particularly within the case of Libya.
Within the second part, it is going to be pertinent to completely display the connections between R2P and securitisation. The most effective begin for that is within the work of Carl Schmitt, who has been used to critique R2P by Jeremy Moses, and has additionally been posited as an affect on securitisation concept. The logic of Schmitt’s Idea of the Political could be seen in R2P and in securitisation theories mechanisms for figuring out a risk to be stopped, and a referent object price saving. After this, I’ll use the revised framework for securitisation to undertake an evaluation of statements surrounding the intervention in Libya in 2011. All through this evaluation I’ll use the logic of securitisation, together with its results, and Schmitt’s definition of the political to point out how the intervention was first articulated as an ethical mission to guard Libya’s civilians from any hurt befalling them through the battle. It would then be proven how this narrative had hidden the political intentions of the intervening actors, which turned clear after they carried out their safety follow to take the facet of the rebels in opposition to Qadaffi. When abandoning neutrality, the interveners additionally made it clear that they solely considered Qadaffi as a risk to civilians and, thus, he was the one absolutely securitised risk of the Libyan intervention. It’s then price discussing what the results of this course of had been. This can require addressing the affect on Libya and its civilians, to deem that it in actual fact solely made their dangerous state of affairs worse. There are additionally profound results on the worldwide neighborhood, particularly in regard to the legacy of R2P and any additional makes an attempt to assist different civilians liable to falling sufferer to one of many 4 crimes coated by R2P. It’s also necessary on the conclusion of this work to focus on the place else the framework I’ve created might be utilized and what follow-up analysis can be helpful.
The Origins and Content material of R2P and Securitisation
The Duty to Shield
To grasp the results of R2P’s language and the way this got here to the fore within the Libyan intervention of 2011, we should perceive how this doctrine got here to be and what arguments and concepts have been put ahead about it to date. We are able to hint the origins of R2P to the context produced by numerous atrocities dedicated in opposition to populations within the Nineties. The Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) highlights this within the foreword to their foundational report on R2P from 2001. They focus on that, pre-9/11, humanitarian intervention was a subject on the prime of the worldwide agenda as a consequence of its controversy when employed ‘in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo – and when it has did not occur, as in Rwanda.’[1]. Some have posited this report as ‘the conceptual bedrock for R2P’[2]. That’s not to say it was all all the way down to the ICISS, nonetheless, as they actually drew inspiration from the work of Francis Deng et al ‘Sovereignty as Duty: Battle Administration in Africa’[3]. It was additionally within the spirit of, then Secretary-Normal of the United Nations (UN), Kofi Annan’s assertion that:
…if humanitarian intervention is, certainly, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how ought to we reply to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica…[4]
Co-chairs for the ICISS Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun additional constructed on these conceptual origins by emphasising that by way of the reframing of the problem because the “accountability to guard” we will escape concepts, prevalent within the nineties, that the argument must be concerning the “proper to intervene”[5]. This categorisation for the purpose of R2P units it other than the beforehand dominant thought of humanitarian intervention, critiqued by some as ‘nonsensical’ and ‘the hallmark of deceit’[6]. Humanitarian intervention by no means tackled the problem of sovereignty as it’s outlined within the UN constitution[7]; as an alternative, its debates centered on when the best of sovereignty must be violated for the better good of the citizenry of a given state. Set very a lot other than this was the purpose of the ICISS to acknowledge the sovereignty of member states enshrined within the UN constitution however to counter this with the declare that sovereignty has taken on a unique character and which means because the creation of the constitution. To them,
Sovereignty implies a twin accountability: externally, to respect the sovereignty of different states, and internally, to respect the dignity and primary rights of all of the individuals throughout the state.[8]
It’s this inner accountability that kinds the bottom justification for R2P. When a state’s inhabitants is struggling ‘severe hurt’[9], as a consequence of causes from state failure to intra-state battle, and mentioned state is ‘unwilling or unable’[10] to do something to cease this then the ‘worldwide accountability to guard’ overrides ‘the precept of non-intervention’[11]. It’s extensively accepted that this accountability ‘flows from already current authorized obligations of States beneath worldwide regulation’[12]. It’s rightly said that this accountability sits in a milieu of ‘treaty and customary obligations of States beneath human rights regulation’ in addition to ‘humanitarian regulation and worldwide prison regulation’[13].
It can be crucial, following the dialogue of the doctrine’s origins, that the three pillars of R2P are clearly delineated in order to make clear what the third pillar measures, which might be my focus, entail. Pillar one entails ‘The accountability of every particular person state to guard its inhabitants from genocide, struggle crimes, ethnic cleaning, crimes in opposition to humanity, and their incitement.’[14]. The 4 crimes outlined listed below are what R2P is worried with and are the justifications for any R2P intervention. The second pillar issues ‘The accountability of the worldwide neighborhood to encourage and assist states to train this accountability’[15]. The third pillar is ‘The accountability of the worldwide neighborhood to be ready to take collective motion, in a well timed and decisive method in accordance with the United Nations Constitution’[16], ought to the earlier two pillars fail and the state in query can not, or is not going to, cease the violence. It’s when the worldwide neighborhood is permitted to make use of army motion to implement R2P on a given state that this analysis is worried with. It’s when R2P facilitates army motion that the contradiction between what helps states settle for such a measure and the way this must be put into follow turns into clear. Nevertheless, all of those good intentions haven’t made it uncontroversial, and it’s important to grasp and interact the debates surrounding R2P, over fifteen years since its adoption by the UN[17].
One most important battle between students over the doctrine of R2P stems from this redefinition of sovereignty as accountability and never ‘for granted’[18]. Broadly divided, the 2 camps of this argument are between those that deal with ‘sovereignty’s traditionally contingent and contested nature’[19]. While then again there are people who posit this as an incompatible view as ‘an influence which is “accountable” to a different, exterior, physique clearly lacks sovereign authority’[20]. Nevertheless, if my purpose is to reveal the political character of R2P hidden by its non-political language, this course of will be unable to issue sovereignty into the equation. Whether or not sovereignty is static or not doesn’t have an effect on how the mechanisms of R2P’s third pillar function in follow.
Throughout the literature that seeks to critique R2P, we do discover our first entrance into an thought of R2P being greater than only a non-political doctrine of human safety. This may be greatest characterised as charging R2P as an inherently political doctrine. A powerful articulation of this concept got here from Jeremy Moses. Taking purpose on the manner by which R2P is normally mentioned in ‘apolitical phrases of civilian safety’ he posits that as an alternative this doctrine has a ‘deeply political nature’[21]. Essential to notice for this argument is that the ‘political’ nature he’s referring to is one which attracts on the work of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt states, ‘The precise political distinction to which political actions and motives could be decreased is that between buddy and enemy’[22]. Different students have highlighted that this depoliticization of an inherently political course of results in ‘the moralization of politics’[23]. This exposes a attainable consequence of R2P’s non-political language, because it goals to stop the worst crimes in opposition to humanity; if we strip away its political character within the decision-making course of, we’re solely left with the ethical distinction of ‘good and evil’[24].
Securitisation
With the details for R2P elucidated, it is very important make clear this similar course of with my second key idea, securitisation. Securitisation as a coherent concept emerged with the work of what’s now generally known as the Copenhagen College. This faculty consists of the students Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan and Jaap de Wilde, amongst others, named for many of their writings on this subject rising from the Battle and Peace Analysis Institute in Copenhagen[25]. In ‘Safety a New Framework for Evaluation’, these three students set about defining what securitisation concept is, and easy methods to outline and analyse securitisation in follow. Their definition of safety, in worldwide relations, is that it ‘is the transfer that takes politics past the established guidelines of the sport’, and locations a difficulty above politics or in a ‘particular type of politics’[26]. When one thing is ‘securitized’ it’s proven ‘as an existential risk, requiring emergency measures’[27] which justifies a response that goes past normal political process. They additional elaborate that this course of ‘is what in language concept is named a speech act’[28]. Due to this fact, on this mannequin when a safety actor securitises a difficulty then ‘one thing is completed’[29]. They make clear this speech act as not being ‘outlined by uttering the phrase safety’[30]. It is just important there’s a ‘designation of an existential risk requiring emergency motion’ and this designation’s acceptance ‘by a major viewers’[31]. The CS’ facilitating circumstances additional define how the method runs deeper than merely talking safety. They take a three-fold strategy to the circumstances, which may help a securitisation take impact, however even all three can not assure profitable securitisation. The primary situation is that the actor have to be ‘following the grammar of safety’, which means there’s a constructed plot, defining an ‘existential risk, level of no return and attainable manner out’[32]. The second is targeted on the social ‘place of authority’ for ‘the securitizing actor’[33], this outlines the speaker’s relationship to their given viewers; it follows the extra authority a speaker has with an viewers, the upper the prospect of a securitisation’s acceptance. The ultimate situation pertains to the ‘options of the alleged threats’; this might enhance the prospect of a profitable securitisation if the speaker can reference objects equivalent to ‘tanks’ or ‘hostile sentiments’ which are ‘usually held to be threatening’[34].
The CS framework for securitisation is complete, however with scholarly consideration there was some vital contributions and revisions, which must be included. That is aimed in direction of a coherent securitisation concept that may be utilized to the state of affairs round Libya in 2011. The primary scholar price partaking with right here is Thierry Balzacq. He broadly takes purpose on the ‘viewers’[35] in securitisation concept. That’s, he focuses on securitisations formulation as a ‘speech act’ and costs this formulation as decreasing ‘safety to a traditional process’ the place ‘(circumstances of success) should absolutely prevail for the act to undergo’[36]. To this finish, he reformulates securitisation as ‘a strategic (pragmatic) follow’, which takes place in a milieu of ‘circumstances’[37]. This consists of ‘the context, the psycho-cultural disposition of the viewers’, in addition to the relative energy of ‘speaker and listener’[38]. Thus, he seeks to tug securitisation away from being a speech act in order that it now not seeks to search out the ‘elementary rules’ that underpin all communication, no matter spatial or temporal variation. There are additionally others who’ve taken situation with the speech act side of securitisation[39], [40]however their conclusions will not be as pertinent to my work as Balzacq’s. He additionally engages the kind of assist that may be given to a securitising actor and divides these into ‘formal and ethical’[41]. While these are distinct types of assist, they’ll actually mutually reinforce each other. We are able to see ethical assist coming from sure establishments or the general public in a given securitisation case, however the formal assist can mandate ‘the federal government to undertake a selected coverage’[42] and can normally at all times come from a proper establishment. This reformulation attracts in related exterior circumstances and inner logics effecting a securitisation and additional develops the function of the listeners in a securitisation, in a manner that isn’t permissible within the CS framework alone.
Following Balzacq’s empirical utilisation of the ‘intersubjective’[43] nature of securitisation, there have been additional efforts to construct on this. Paul Roe in 2008 took a direct cue from Balzacq and, constructing on the totally different types of assist actors can obtain, he divided securitisation into a definite two step-process. Beginning with the ‘stage of identification’, ‘the place a difficulty is recognized’[44] as an existential risk. Adopted by ‘the stage of mobilization’, which is when ‘responses to that situation are thereafter established’[45]. The results of this delineation demonstrates ‘the significance of the particular employment of emergency measures’[46] for outlining what makes up a securitisation. If we undertake this revision and consider the measures taken to cope with a risk as a part of a securitisations success, it reveals us that ‘what issues finally is the formal assist of establishments’[47], as they would be the ones permitting for any implementation of measures.
A last mandatory revision of the CS method of securitisation for this work provides the power to interrogate the intentions of securitising actors. This requires drawing the philosophical distinction between intentions and motives. Highlighting the work of Elizabeth Anscombe[48], Rita Floyd factors to the CS’ unwillingness to say something about what the safety actor is selecting to do. That’s as a result of they misunderstand ‘that intentions are what an actor goals at or chooses to do’ however ‘motives are what determines an actor’s purpose or alternative’[49]. Carrying on from the work of Roe, Floyd breaks a securitisation down into ‘(1) the securitising transfer’ and ‘(2) safety follow’[50]. Inside this primary motion, the actor points a ‘warning’ to whoever is seen because the risk and a ‘promise’ to the referent object the actor needs to guard[51]. The second motion is very similar to Roe’s mobilisation and accounts for the change in ‘behaviour by the related agent’[52] in response to the transfer. She additional highlights that, between these two distinct actions, we will observe the intentions of a safety actor. If the safety follow employed is ‘in line with the threats’[53] the actor recognized, then this advantages the referent object and their intentions had been clearly what they warned and promised. Nevertheless, when there may be ‘a substantial and in any other case inexplicable hole’ between the transfer and follow, then the actor has meant to learn another person from this securitisation. This lends nice depth to the examine of securitisation in follow.
R2P, Schmitt, Securitisation and their Connection
The most effective place to begin to expose the stress that exists between concepts of securitisation and R2P is with the beforehand referenced work of Jeremy Moses. As mentioned, he highlights the hidden political dynamics working behind R2P, referencing the work of Carl Schmitt, and reveals that R2P maintains ‘a universalist, humanitarian stance’[54] in its response to crises. In his work, Schmitt warned of the hazards inherent in approaching a political battle on this manner. He claims that when ‘a state fights its political enemy within the identify of humanity’ that is merely ‘a struggle whereby a selected state seeks to usurp a common idea in opposition to its army opponent’[55]. Moses posits the try to keep up a universalist stance inherent to R2P’s justifications ‘tends towards a denial of the function and results of energy within the decision of emergency conditions’[56]. In an much more rudimentary sense, it makes use of the non-political language of universalist rules to disclaim that it’s even reliant on a political distinction. Right here I seek advice from the Schmittian idea of the political, whereby, at its core, resides the excellence between political associates and political enemies. And this distinction ought to by no means be decreased to, or equated with every other ‘sphere’, such because the ethical distinction of ‘good and evil’ or the aesthetic distinction of ‘ugly and delightful’[57]. Thus, when the political distinctions are faraway from a call to fight an enemy and changed with notions that it’s a battle for the sake of humanity, it has the impact of ‘denying the enemy the standard of being human’, which in flip permits a struggle to ‘be pushed to essentially the most excessive inhumanity’[58].
The significance of this for the case of R2P in Libya, nonetheless, is that ‘there aren’t any wars for humanity as such’ and that is merely the ‘extremely political utilization of the non-political time period humanity’[59]. In an excessive case of R2P, the third pillar offers provisions that power could also be used to implement accountability; so ‘it is a doctrine that encapsulates the potential for fight in opposition to an enemy group’[60]. Within the case of Libya, it is going to be proven how the political utilization of R2P’s non-political justifications for intervention painted Qadaffi and his regime because the evil outlaws of humanity, while in follow it couldn’t escape the political distinction of buddy/enemy, because it by no means hindered or criticised any actions by the rebels. The refusal by the intervening powers to deal with the atrocities that anti-Qadaffi forces had been committing rests on ‘the anti-politics of the R2P, which, to operate based on its personal ethical platform, should keep away from the impression of ‘choosing sides’’[61]. While the universalist precept of an intervention justified as a risk to humanity permits for the masking of straight political intentions of intervening powers, it additionally offers clear moralistic narratives to the battle. While, ‘these narratives are interesting to a broad international viewers, they obscure the complicated politics of the civil battle and the political function of the intervening power’[62]. The invocation of R2P for army intervention has two key results. It creates a simplistic narrative of fine and evil the place interveners sit as representatives of humanity merely doing what is correct. Secondly, this non-political narrative of intervention hides all of the logic of the political that’s used to determine who’s the actual hazard to civilians, because the interventionist ignorance of insurgent atrocities clearly demonstrates. It leaves all supporters of R2P in Libya unaware ‘that the intervention in Libya was deeply and irrevocably political from the very begin’[63].
To grasp how securitisation suits into this image of R2P’s universalist character, we should perceive Schmitt’s connection to the idea of securitisation, and from this, construct the connection between the 2. An early formulation of this connection comes from Michael Williams, who highlights ‘the identification of ‘‘safety’’ with a logic of existential risk and excessive necessity’ inside securitisation that displays the logic of ‘existential division, of friendship and enmity’[64] on the core of Schmitt’s idea of the political. The logic of the political is a powerful present working by way of R2P’s processes, particularly the third pillar, regardless of its masking by universalist rules. To grasp how the language of R2P was used to justify an intervention to guard civilians, that become regime change, securitisation is crucial.
With this theoretical relation between the 2 facets elucidated, it’s price addressing the work which has posited a fair nearer hyperlink. That’s, the concept that R2P is itself a speech-act. Reflecting the logic of securitisation, it has been mentioned that ‘By talking R2P’ it’s claimed ‘that an existential risk exists’, ‘emergency measures are required’ and ‘the problem is elevated above regular politics’[65]. I don’t agree with the conclusion drawn from the above formulation by Stamnes, as it’s an try and reform R2P by solely referring to it in circumstances the place ‘an pressing and extraordinary response is required’[66]. This doesn’t reduce to the basis reason behind the issues, which I purpose to deal with. To do that, it’s higher to consider R2P because the pragmatic follow of securitisation that Balzacq has beforehand formulated. So, when R2P is spoken, in addition to the simply mentioned logic of existential risk and emergency measure justification coming in to play, it additionally pulls within the context, by which the act is mentioned, the viewers’s psycho-cultural disposition and ‘inferences based mostly on non-linguistic world information’[67]. This implies when a member state of the UN calls on the opposite members to answer a disaster beneath the R2P umbrella, lots of them will take into consideration the turbulent interval that gave delivery to this doctrine, beforehand talked about. These elements, related to a profitable securitisation, when mixed with R2P’s declare that it ‘is common’[68] and non-political, will present when it permits interveners to behave as arbiters for humanity, the morally motivated civilian safety of R2P can cover the political intentions of actors. This revised formulation of R2P as a practical follow speaks to what Gareth Evans noticed as the aim of R2P’s language, which is that it’ll generate ‘an efficient, consensual response in excessive, conscience-shocking circumstances’[69].
There have been these, nonetheless, who disagree with the concept that R2P is a rhetorical system to engender worldwide motion, and it’s extra concrete than that. Alex Bellamy, is one such thinker, as he maintains that R2P is a ‘coverage agenda knowledgeable by dedication to normative rules’ and that is ‘incompatible’ with the thought it is usually a ‘speech act and catalyst for motion’[70]. Nevertheless, one defence for this declare is that ‘RtoP-related crises can be handled by way of the UN’s regular peace and safety mechanisms’, so don’t ‘require “distinctive” measures’[71]. In securitisation concept, nonetheless, these distinctive measures will not be outlined on a purely authorized foundation. As an alternative, distinctive measures can vary from ‘levying taxes’ to ‘focusing society’s power and assets on a selected activity’[72] and past, to the breaking of pre-established legal guidelines. Elevating taxes or focusing a nation’s power and assets on a given activity don’t require something exterior the traditional peace and safety mechanisms of a given state, and it could be the identical when it got here to an R2P associated crises handled by the UN. Because the ICISS said of their foundational report, ‘Army intervention for human safety functions is an distinctive and extraordinary measure’[73], regardless of the context.
With these connections between my two core ideas explicated, it turns into clear how they work together. R2P in follow and concept makes an attempt to seem as non-political, embodying the universalist rules that Schmitt takes situation with; with its reference to ‘the worldwide neighborhood’[74], because the authority deciding on when R2P applies, and ‘common justice – justice with out borders’[75] this turns into clear. Nevertheless, as Schmitt says, a struggle for humanity merely ‘has an particularly intensive political which means’[76]. Nowhere is that this clearer than in R2P’s third pillar, the place army intervention is permitted ought to ‘nationwide authorities’[77] fail to satisfy their obligations. In concept this may merely contain designating the populations being failed by their leaders as associates, and the failing authorities and every other combatants already concerned in a battle with the failing authorities as enemies, as in a civil struggle they’ll all current severe hazard to civilian populations. The common character of R2P hides such antagonistic distinctions behind a ‘pacifist vocabulary’[78], which avoids any notion that it’s an explicitly political choice, which can decide the distinction between life and loss of life for some individuals. As an alternative, it paints a paternalistic picture of ‘the worldwide neighborhood’ stepping in for a failed authority ‘to behave as a replacement’[79]. Nevertheless, if we view R2P as a practical act of securitisation we perceive that when a disaster is handled beneath its umbrella it’s a name to motion for the worldwide neighborhood that can use ‘artifacts’[80] to affect this viewers’s acceptance, and might be tremendously impacted by the context, by which the viewers sees the problem.
This formulation of R2P as a practical act will display how the non-political language and universalist rules of R2P kind a part of the context that such statements are located in. R2P’s skill to cut back interventions, like Libya, into ethical distinctions, is ready to, concurrently, facilitate much more lethal interventions than if the political decision-making was laid out plainly; in addition to making its acceptance by a given viewers more likely. Within the case of Libya, R2P was invoked for army intervention with United Nations Safety Council Decision (UNSCR) 1973[81]. With securitisation’s framework, within the subsequent chapter, I’ll analyse statements from throughout the Libyan intervention. The rhetoric that we’ll see progress strikes from solely referring to civilian safety to advocating for regime change, and that is closely supported by the proof of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) actions and the assist for anti-Qadaffi rebels, as soon as they had been granted the UN mandate[82]. This might be a transparent instance of the universalist rules of R2P on human safety, hiding the political decision-making that drives the intervention and resulting in pointless lack of civilian life and large infrastructural injury. It would additionally display the disconnect between safety transfer and follow, which reveals the political intentions, and the necessity for formal assist of establishments.
The Case of Libya
To display what the results of this concept are in follow, it’s price trying on the occasions round Libya in 2011 in some element. The disaster started in what’s now generally known as the Arab Spring, the place a ‘wave of political protest’[83] swept throughout international locations equivalent to Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia and ultimately Libya. It was February 15th when insurrection broke out in Libya, and Benghazi was beneath opposition management inside 5 days[84]. This represented a major problem to Libya’s long-time dictator Muammar Qadaffi, who had been in energy since a ‘cold coup’ put him in energy in 1969[85]. His response to the favored protests in opposition to him was ‘army repression’ and this led to his forces regaining management over the vast majority of the nation and surrounding Benghazi by early March 2011[86]. It was on this context, with Benghazi surrounded and Qadaffi’s revenge immanent, that the UNSC moved with ‘alacrity’ to cross resolutions 1970 and 1973 on the 26th of February and the 17th of March respectively[87]. It’s at this level that I’ll now textually analyse the decision put ahead by the UNSC allowing army power, together with related debates from the nationwide parliaments of intervening powers, and worldwide responses to the intervention to focus on the utility of securitisation in elucidating the hidden political character of R2P.
The most effective place to start out with this evaluation is UNSCR 1973, which permitted the intervention by army means into Libya. The decision’s earliest and clearest articulation of the language of R2P pertains to the Libyan authorities and conflicting events first and second pillar obligations. ‘Reiterating the accountability of the Libyan authorities to guard the Libyan inhabitants and reaffirming that events to armed conflicts bear the first accountability to take all possible steps to make sure the safety of civilians’[88] Following this, additionally they take into account that the present ‘systematic assaults’ going down ‘in opposition to the civilian inhabitants might quantity to crimes in opposition to humanity’[89]. Then, in discussing the safety of civilians, we will see the decision encouraging states to enact their third pillar obligations:
Authorizes Member States which have notified the Secretary-Normal, performing nationally or by way of regional organizations or preparations, and performing in cooperation with the Secretary-Normal, to take all mandatory measures, however paragraph 9 of decision 1970 (2011), to guard civilians [90].
This assertion might tactically chorus from straight referring to the worldwide neighborhood’s accountability to step in for the failing Libyan authorities. It’s because it’s a rational calculation by pro-intervention members of the UNSC ‘to ensure that the Chinese language and Russians to permit the vote for intervention to cross the Safety Council’[91]. The important thing connection between each statements that infer the language of accountability, regardless of referring to totally different pillars of R2P, is the safety of civilians. With the addition within the decision that Qadaffi’s actions on the time may represent crimes in opposition to humanity, it’s attainable to see how the intervention devolved into regime change, as from the outset Qadaffi is highlighted versus the shared values of humanity. Due to this fact, we now have a direct reference to the Libyan authorities’ accountability to guard its inhabitants, Qadaffi’s actions already pushing him into the place of an outlaw of humanity, and the allowance of all mandatory measures from intervening powers to guard civilians. So, for R2P to be constant by itself phrases it should not seem to choose sides and this can make acceptance of the motion a lot simpler in formal establishments. I’ll now use a debate in the UK (UK) from the day after this decision was handed to display the effectiveness this had.
To open a debate on UNSCR 1973, David Cameron, then Prime Minister of the UK, said ‘Now that the UN Safety Council has reached its choice, there’s a accountability on its members to reply’[92]. This reference to the UK’s accountability to behave to guard Libyan civilians reveals the Prime Minister’s makes an attempt to make use of the language of R2P to encourage formal assist from parliament for this intervention. Because the referent object of Libya’s civilians, confirmed in UNSCR 1973, is beneath risk, and it isn’t merely a alternative by council members to reply however their ‘accountability’ to take action. Unquestionably, this securitisation of threats to civilians in Libya had its meant impact. Because the chief of the opposition on the time, Edward Miliband echoed the phrases of the Prime Minister when expressing his assist for the intervention:
…the army motion that’s being embarked upon has broad assist, a authorized base and recognises our accountability to guard the Libyan individuals[93].
As a result of authorities composition on the time, which was a coalition between Liberal Democrats and the Conservative occasion, with the Labour occasion’s assist, excluding a couple of rebellious MP’s, it led to 557 MP’s supporting the intervention and solely 13 opposing[94]. The utility of R2P’s language for gaining formal parliamentary assist didn’t finish within the UK. It was on March 19th that the Danish Parliament unanimously handed their governments proposal to contribute to the operation[95]. This unanimous choice was a primary in assist for Danish army motion post-World Conflict II[96]. One posited motive for this excessive stage of assist is the ‘legitimacy of a UN Safety Council Decision’[97], which has been proven to have been firmly grounded within the non-political language of R2P. With its articulation in UNSCR 1973, and skill to garner formal assist in residence parliaments for these keen to intervene, this identification of Libyan civilians because the referent object, and the hazards of the rising battle because the risk to them is the preliminary securitising transfer.
Nevertheless, after this early swell of optimism and assist, the narrative needed to change. The risk to Benghazi, a insurgent stronghold and key goal of Qadaffi, was all however eradicated by March 19th as a consequence of air strikes, crippling the regime’s army functionality[98]. Qadaffi and his forces confronted overwhelming odds, as NATO bombardments maintained ranges of strain and supplied the rebels with a big uneven benefit. Little lower than a month later, on April 15th, the ‘most important international locations concerned’[99], France, Britain and the USA, leaders printed a letter, which started to disclose a discrepancy between the preliminary securitising transfer and the safety follow. On this letter they state that ‘it’s unattainable to think about a future for Libya with Qadhafi in energy’[100] adopted by the promise that ‘as long as Qadhafi is in energy, NATO and its coalition companions should preserve their operations in order that civilians stay protected’[101]. They conclude that for Libya to transition in to an open and free society, ‘Colonel Qadhafi should go and go for good’[102]. It’s this letter that embodies the disconnect between what UNSCR 1973 outlined, and what was really carried out. Within the 18th March debate in Parliament, David Cameron had said he would ‘be sure that anybody chargeable for abuses in Libya might be held to account’[103].
A month down the road, he and the opposite most important proponents of this intervention had equated Qadaffi as the only real risk to civilians on this battle. That’s not to say that Qadaffi didn’t pose a risk to his individuals, he did, however there are some who say he might have even been much less harmful to them than the rebels had been[104], [105]. There have been no systematic assaults and bloodbaths in cities Qadaffi’s forces recaptured from the rebels, equivalent to Zawiya and Ajdabiya[106], earlier than intervention. With the in depth reprisal killings rebels carried out in opposition to migrant employees, based mostly on their standing as migrants, and subsequently probably former mercenaries[107], after Qadaffi was defeated, it turns into clear that the rebels had been a risk to civilians. So, the moralisation of those three leaders over evil Qadaffi can solely be seen as a ploy to keep up legitimacy and assist for his or her inherently political choice to see the rebels as ‘associates’. The UN Human Rights Council would conclude throughout their inquiry in 2012, ‘the anti-Qadhafi forces, the thuwar, had dedicated severe violations, together with struggle crimes and breaches of worldwide human rights regulation’[108]. The main focus right here to color Qadaffi as the only real risk to civilians in Libya is the type of disconnect between securitising transfer and safety follow highlighted as key to revealing ‘whether or not a securitisation was constant by itself phrases’[109], and on this case we will see it was not honest. The discount of the battle, on this letter, to an evil Qadaffi versus a wholly good opposition, demonstrates the logic of the simplistic narrative, which allowed for such speedy acceptance within the residence parliaments of interventionists. The moralisation additionally obscures the intensive political which means behind such statements, as the selection to behave as a ‘de facto air power’[110] for the rebels was actually not an ethical alternative. Nevertheless, this didn’t curiosity these leaders who had seen an opportunity to oust a destabilising fixture of North African political life, and previously temporary Western ally[111], which was their intention, regardless of the anomaly of their motive.
The total securitisation, together with the securitising transfer and the follow, put in place by NATO, of Qadaffi as sole risk turns into simple after we see the response of sure UNSC members and the motion NATO carried out. On the 27th of June 2011 at a gathering of the Safety Council, the consultant for South Africa, who had voted in favour of each UNSCR 1970 and 1973[112], Mr Mashabane commented on their view of the implementation of UNSCR 1973. He said that after 100 days of NATO operations, ‘the state of affairs has deteriorated, with extra lack of civilian life and large destruction of infrastructure’[113]. Following this, he asserted when South Africa voted for decision 1973 ‘Our intention was by no means regime change; nor was it the concentrating on of people’. The objection to the concentrating on of people speaks to incidents such because the NATO bombing of Qadaffi’s villa in Tripoli, which killed Qadaffi’s youngest son and three grandchildren, who all had just about nothing to do with the nation’s governance[114]. Mashabane concluded close to the African Union’s advert hoc Excessive-Degree Committee on Libya that met the day earlier than, which ‘reiterated the African Union’s demand for a right away pause within the preventing and the NATO-led bombings to supply a respite to the civilian inhabitants’[115].
Examples of official discontent from UNSC members present how the NATO plan of action equating safety of civilians with the removing of Qadaffi by power was not wholly accepted as right. South Africa was very supportive at first when the intervention was clearly painted as a non-political and benevolent rescue operation for Libya’s civilians. Nevertheless, they noticed that NATO had gone past the resolutions and the irrevocably political character turned clear within the insincere safety follow, which had been facilitated by the moralistic securitising strikes.
Future Penalties
Using R2P in Libya represents an excessive case for the usage of R2P. As an intervention, it’s an ‘exception’ when it comes ‘to authorising non-consensual, coercive army power’[116] within the identify of R2P, as this has solely ever been carried out within the much less outstanding case of Cote d’lvoire at an analogous time[117]. Due to this fact, as my concept applies to R2P’s use of the third pillar, the place power is authorised, that is essentially the most important case to display the damaging results of non-political and universalist justifications for safeguarding civilians. As is proven within the earlier chapter, the revisions of securitisation permit for an intensive evaluation of the affect of R2P’s justifications. Within the case of Libya, we noticed the preliminary assist of formal establishments, the house parliaments of interventionists and the UNSC, was predicated on R2P’s universalist claims that the worldwide neighborhood bears accountability to civilians internationally. Nevertheless, when analysing the follow carried out off the again of this securitising transfer, it turned clear it was inconsistent by itself phrases. The clear intention of the main intervention powers to take away Qadaffi and his regime regardless of the associated fee incurred by their assist for the rebels, demonstrated the disconnect between their safety follow and transfer; concurrently revealing that the moralistic language of R2P’s universalist rules had hidden ‘the politics that persist on the coronary heart of the R2P’[118]. Past the affect this had on worldwide assist for the intervention, because it dragged on and its political nature was revealed, there are a lot broader penalties, each for the worldwide neighborhood and the individuals of Libya since Qadaffi’s ‘brutal loss of life’ on the hand of rebels on 20th October 2011[119].
To grasp the broader impacts of this intervention on the worldwide neighborhood, it’s price rapidly summarising the views sure nations held throughout and after the intervention. The most important affect of the method I’ve simply outlined internationally occurred within the overseas coverage stance of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)[120]. China and Russia each adopted an analogous sample to South Africa of their relation to the Libyan intervention. After the vote on UNSCR 1973, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin mentioned his nation ‘was a constant and agency advocate of the safety of the civilian inhabitants’, which is why they didn’t oppose the decision. Equally, China’s Ambassador Li Baodong said, regardless of their abstention, they ‘assist the Safety Council’s adoption of acceptable and mandatory motion’ to stabilize Libya and ‘to halt acts of violence in opposition to civilians’[121]. Nevertheless, these constructive abstentions would flip to dissent: solely two months after the passing of UNSCR 1973 each of those ambassadors’ voiced issues. Discussing NATO’s narrative round their actions in Could 2011, Churkin mentioned ‘The assertion by a consultant of the coalition with regard to decision 1973 (2011) isn’t according to the fact’[122]. Baodong additionally echoed the scepticism of Churkin, stating ‘There have to be no try at regime change or involvement in civil struggle by any occasion beneath the guise of defending civilians’[123]. While there are nonetheless people who imagine the Libyan intervention was constructive for the individuals of Libya[124], [125], [126], this angle isn’t shared by the BRICS international locations. For instance, Russia and China have vetoed resolutions from the Safety Council concerning Syria, even ones merely hinting ‘at attainable penalties for the Syrian authorities for its repression’[127]. Churkin said that Syria can’t be separated from ‘the Libyan expertise’, and that ‘the worldwide neighborhood is alarmed’ that NATO’s actions in Libya might be ‘a mannequin for the long run actions of NATO in implementing the accountability to guard’[128]. It may be seen that there’s a direct hyperlink to the dishonest securitising strikes of the interventionists round Libya and the present paralysis the UNSC faces over the disaster in Syria, which arose in very related circumstance to Libya. While Russia could also be allied extra carefully with the Syrian regime than they had been with Qadaffi, this failure nonetheless offers them, on the very least, extra credible grounds for opposition to UNSC motion.
It’s key to state that my evaluation of the occasions surrounding Libya, the usage of universalist rules to moralise a battle and obfuscate political intentions isn’t just restricted to favouring Japanese non-interventionist states over Western states, extra occupied with upholding worldwide human rights legal guidelines. In 2008, ‘Russian authorities invoked R2P norms’ to justify ‘army intervention into neighbouring Georgia’[129]. This was based mostly on the declare that ‘the invasion aimed toward stopping a genocide in South Ossetia’[130]. This try and justify their intervention in R2P phrases failed as a result of there was no proof of any such genocide and an absence of assist from China that Russia must depend on[131]. Nevertheless, regardless of its failure, this try by Russia emphasises the purpose that it isn’t solely Western states who may cover clearly political intentions behind non-political language. Actually, with rising tensions between China and Russia roughly on one facet and the European Union and the US on the opposite[132], [133], the necessity to interrogate the intentions of each side is crucial. Whether or not they declare to behave on ethical grounds or in the event that they want to have interaction in an intervention by way of R2P and its universalist rules, the framework I’ve supplied right here could be utilised to research their true political intentions, learning the disconnect between their securitising strikes and safety follow, and the utility of non-political language to permit such measures acceptance.
To return to the case of Libya is to search out as equally profound penalties for the civilians, who ought to have been the precedence of all motion in 2011, and the political stability of their nation. UNSCR 2009 established the United Nations Help Mission in Libya (UNSMIL)[134] in September 2011. Regardless of promising early indicators, with July 2012 seeing ‘the primary democratic elections’ in Libya ‘since its independence in 1951’[135], Libya by 2014 ‘had descended into uncontrolled violence’ and started ‘a civil struggle that may rightly be known as multi-factional’[136]. This multi-factional struggle emerged between the previous allies who had opposed Qadaffi. Regardless of inner splits within the two sides, it was broadly between a secular leaning faction, with a authorities in Tobruk, supported by Home of Representatives, and Normal Khalifa Haftar within the nation, with exterior assist coming from Egypt and United Arab Emirates[137]. They had been opposed by a broadly Islamic faction, based mostly in Tripoli, with the brand new Normal Nationwide Congress, and extra Islamist militias supporting them internally, and Turkey, Qatar and Sudan offering exterior assist[138]. Thus, simply a few years after the NATO intervention had set about to guard the individuals of Libya and supply them the liberty to decide on their very own future, the nation turned the positioning of wrestle for regional powers seeking to capitalise on the chaos left behind by the interveners.
A legacy of Qadaffi’s 42-year rule was a complete lack of any institutional depth inside authorities and little or no expertise ‘with parliamentary and government procedures’[139]. With the involvement of regional powers backing the opposing governments within the east and west of the nation, ‘Their very own bitter rivalry exacerbated inner struggles and tore the nation aside’[140]. With the primary elections since 2012 scheduled for twenty-four December 2021[141], on the again of a ceasefire in October 2020[142], there may be some hope of peace taking root. Nevertheless, to evaluate the NATO led intervention on its key goal from 2011, to guard civilians, will result in the conclusion that this intervention failed. Even when the ‘struggle crimes and crimes in opposition to humanity’ dedicated by the Thuwar, and the actual fact these violations continued after the autumn of Qadaffi ‘in a local weather of impunity’[143] isn’t thought of, then the years of instability and protracted battle left behind by the intervention is a damning indictment. The truth of this intervention in Libya is that its one-sided assist for the anti-Qadaffi rebels facilitated them committing their very own violations of human rights all through the battle, and in addition allowed them to proceed this after Qadaffi’s fall. With the rise of a multiplicity of militias through the battle and the proliferation of Qadaffi’s arsenals, equivalent to 15,000 surface-to-air missiles, nonetheless unaccounted for in February 2012, however proof displaying some had been obtained by Boko Haram in Niger[144], it’s onerous to argue this intervention was in any manner successful. There is no such thing as a metric obtainable to deem that the lives of these saved from Qadaffi in Benghazi had been definitely worth the lives of the Tawerghans, migrant employees and the various who died after ‘the sunshine footprint’[145] mission of UNSMIL couldn’t cease the chaos of regional rivalries and intrastate battle.
General, this use of Schmitt’s idea of the political and a revised securitisation concept is essential to understanding the issues that existed within the Libyan intervention from its first articulation to make use of power in UNSCR 1973. It additionally has the potential to elucidate the elemental flaws in different interventions, or third-party involvements in intrastate conflicts, which are justified by way of non-political language. As ‘this allegedly nonpolitical… system serves current or newly rising friend-and-enemy groupings and can’t escape the logic of the political’[146]. When this understanding that political selections can’t be escaped, solely hidden, by language is obvious, then securitisation provides a sensible option to analyse this. By means of securitisations revisions the best way this non-political language, embodying universalist rules, results the acceptance of a securitisation by formal establishments could be seen. This non-political language, attracts on the disposition of the viewers and the artifacts embedded in R2P’s language of genocide prevention, making worldwide actors worry the identical despondency that affected the UNSC through the 90s and led to many deaths. On the similar time, when noting the securitising strikes that result in a given safety follow, we will observe the best way by which this non-political language additionally hides the friend-enemy distinction while facilitating acceptance.
Conclusion
With this analysis, I’ve supplied a broad framework for analysing sure varieties of interventions. Extra narrowly, this framework explicates the logic that underpinned the R2P justified intervention into Libya in 2011 to point out the way it was flawed from the outset, and this turned evidenced in the best way it proceeded. At first, it was essential to introduce the essential facets of what proponents of R2P claimed set this doctrine other than the controversial concepts of humanitarian intervention. The reframing of the problem to acknowledge the sovereignty of UN member states, while defining sovereignty as entailing obligations to at least one’s personal inhabitants. For establishing my critique of R2P on this analysis, the work of Jeremy Moses was a foundational half. His use of Schmitt to reveal the inherently political character of R2P, and the way this was hidden by non-political language and led to pointless loss of life in Libya, is a key driver of this evaluation. Earlier than continuing additional, it was mandatory to ascertain what the literature had already handled in regard to securitisation. While the CS framework is a powerful place to start out for any securitisation, the contributions of different teachers to debates surrounding this concept are essential for an empirical utilisation. The revisions of Balzacq, Roe and Floyd had been all essentially the most pertinent to this work, and inclusion of extra revisions would solely serve to complicate the evaluation. Balzacq’s revisions assist to grasp that the viewers will use their information of the world and their understanding of the context of a difficulty to decide on their response to it. Roe contributed that after we take into account the implementation of safety measures in response to an articulated risk, it’s the formal assist of establishments that matter. Thus, as key viewers to deal with within the case of Libya poses the UNSC, who had been the one formal establishment capable of grant permission for the intervention. The revisions by Floyd, which posit {that a} disconnect between securitising strikes and safety follow betray the intentions of a given safety actor, labored properly with the earlier revisions. As a last addition to the method in Libya, as soon as we all know who the necessary assist comes from and the best way that viewers will determine on the problem, Floyd permits for us to see how we will consider the intervention by itself phrases.
With a normal framework for securitisation created, it was necessary to display how this contributes extra to our understanding of R2P in concept, earlier than the deal with the case of Libya. The connection between the 2 theories to Schmitt is necessary for this. By means of the work of Moses, we will see the embodiment of the universalist justifications for struggle that Schmitt opposed for driving conflicts to excessive inhumanity. Likewise, by way of Williams, we see the friend-enemy distinction that’s on the coronary heart of R2P, though hidden by language, can be the logic underpinning a securitisation of a referent object and risk to that object. With this connection, and the important thing revisions to securitisation, it’s attainable to see R2P as a practical act kind of securitisation. This implies, the context and artifacts the viewers use to determine whether or not R2P justifies army response to a risk would be the non-political and moralistic language, which R2P articulates threats in, and this facilitates acceptance. So, what is crucial in R2P’s acceptance as a securitisation is what Schmitt posits would drive it to be a dishonest and dehumanising battle.
When it got here to analysing the safety pronouncements round Libya, it conformed to the method and concept I had beforehand outlined. Starting with UNSCR 1973, the intervention was predicated on non-political language, and it leaned into the universalist rules that might result in Qadaffi’s dehumanisation. This decision had a powerful deal with defending civilians and even referred to punishing all these chargeable for harming civilians, which was strengthened by statements from the house parliaments of interveners. As soon as the safety follow was initiated, the actions that interveners carried out confirmed the intervention had a political character, which was hidden by R2P’s non-political vocabulary when first articulated. This was the intention of interveners to provoke regime change, which was not permitted in UNSCR 1973 and didn’t conform to accepted definitions of an R2P mission. The backlash from sure members of the worldwide neighborhood demonstrated how the complete securitisation of Qadaffi as the one risk to civilians was inconsistent in relation to the securitising transfer, which that they had supported at first. This was additional exemplified because the anti-Qadaffi rebels dedicated their very own litany of atrocities, which the NATO coalition missed, which may solely be carried out politically, actually not morally.
The ultimate a part of this analysis confronted the power to generalise this framework and the implications of the intervention. Internationally, this intervention could be seen as a direct trigger for UNSC inaction over Syria. The framework I’ve constructed up for this intervention may have applicability past R2P. Though it’s best fitted to R2P, as it is a clear instance of non-political language justifying political army interventions, any intervention or third-party involvement in a battle in one other state that’s predicated on non-political or universalist justifications will bear the identical logic. While the horrible state of affairs Libya was left in after the interveners had been gone and Qadaffi was useless demonstrates that nothing good got here out of the method, I’ve highlighted that this intervention went by way of. Attributable to phrase constraints, I’m unable to completely explicate how this course of can apply to interventions based mostly on related logics, however circuitously referring to R2P, and if attainable, I imagine this may be a fruitful avenue for additional analysis.
Finish Notes
[1] ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, pVII, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[2] Cunliffe, Phillip (2016) From ISIS to ICISS: A vital return to the Duty to Shield report, Cooperation and Battle, Vol.51, No.2, p233 final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/48512899
[3] Deng, Francis, Kimaro, Sadikiel, Lyons, Terrence, Rothchild, Donald, Zartman, I. William (1996) Sovereignty as Duty: Battle Administration in Africa, Washington D.C.
[4] Annan, Kofi in ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, pVII, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[5] Evans, Gareth, Sahnoun, Mohamed (2002) The Duty to Shield, Overseas Affairs, Vol.81, No.6, p101, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/20033347
[6] Heraclides, Alexis, Dialla, Ada (2015) Humanitarian Intervention within the Lengthy Nineteenth Century: Setting the Precedent, Manchester college Press, p1, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/j.ctt1mf71b8.4
[7] United Nations (2018) The UN Constitution, Chapter 1, Article 2, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html
[8] Evans, Gareth, Sahnoun, Mohamed (2002) The Duty to Shield, Overseas Affairs, Vol.81, No.6, p102, final accessed 18/02/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/20033347
[9] ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, pXI, final accessed 19/02/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[10] ibid
[11] ibid
[12] Amneus, Diana (2013) The coining and evolution of accountability to guard: the safety obligations of the state, in Zyberi, Gentian (2013) An Institutional Strategy To The Duty To Shield, Cambridge College Press, p3
[13] ibid
[14] Ki-Moon, Ban (2010) Implementing the Duty to Shield, The Stanley Basis, p2, final accessed 12/03/21: https://stanleycenter.org/publications/report/ImplementingR2P_Rpt_31610.pdf
[15] ibid
[16] ibid
[17] Normal Meeting (2005) Decision adopted by the Normal Meeting on 16 September 2005, The United Nations, p30, final accessed 20/02/21: https://www.un.org/en/growth/desa/inhabitants/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf
[18] Chandler, David (2004) The accountability to guard? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’, Worldwide Peacekeeping, Vol.11, Problem.1, p65 final accessed 20/02/21: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1353331042000228454?needAccess=true
[19]Glanville, Luke (2016) Sovereignty, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p151
[20] Chandler, David (2004) The accountability to guard? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’, Worldwide Peacekeeping, Vol.11, Problem.1, p65 final accessed 20/02/21: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1353331042000228454?needAccess=true
[21] Moses, Jeremy (2013) Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield, Paper Introduced on the Worldwide Research Affiliation Annual Conference San Francisco, p1, final accessed 25/02/21: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845
[22] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p26
[23] Cohen, Jean (2004) Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus Worldwide Regulation, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, Vol.18, Problem.3, p3, final accessed 25/02/21: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00474.x
[24] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p26
[25] Stritzel, Holger (2014) Safety in translation, Palgrave and Macmillan, p11
[26] Wæver, Ole, Buzan, Barry, de Wilde, Jaap (1998) Safety A New Framework For Evaluation, Lynne Rienner Publishers, p23
[27] ibid, p23-24
[28] ibid, p26
[29] ibid, p26
[30] ibid, p27
[31] ibid, p27
[32] ibid, p33
[33] ibid
[34] ibid
[35] Stritzel, Holger (2014) Safety in translation, Palgrave and Macmillan, p11
[36] Balzacq, Thierry (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.11, Problem.2, p172 final accessed 2/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960
[37] ibid
[38] ibid
[39] Stritzel, Holger (2007) In direction of a Idea of Securitisation: Copenhagen and Past, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.13, No.3, p357-383, final accessed: 2/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066107080128
[40] Vuori, Juha A. (2008) Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Making use of the Idea of Securitization to the Research of Non-Democratic Political Orders, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.14, No.1, p65-99, final accessed 2/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066107087767
[41] Balzacq, Thierry (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.11, Problem.2, p184 final accessed 2/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960
[42] ibid p185
[44] Roe, Paul (2008) Actor, Viewers(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Determination to Invade Iraq, Safety Dialogue, Vol.39, No.6, p620, final accessed 2/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0967010608098212
[45] ibid
[46] ibid
[47] ibid p632
[48] Anscombe, G.E.M (2000) Intention, Harvard College Press
[49] Floyd, Rita (2010) Safety and the Atmosphere, Cambridge College Press, p43
[50] ibid p53
[51] ibid
[52] ibid p53-54
[53] ibid p56
[54] Moses, Jeremy (2013) Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield, Paper Introduced on the Worldwide Research Affiliation Annual Conference San Francisco, p6, final accessed 25/02/21: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845
[55] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p54
[56] Moses, Jeremy (2013) Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield, Paper Introduced on the Worldwide Research Affiliation Annual Conference San Francisco, p6, final accessed 25/02/21: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845
[57] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p26
[58] ibid p54
[59] ibid p55
[60] Moses, Jeremy (2013) Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield, Paper Introduced on the Worldwide Research Affiliation Annual Conference San Francisco, p5, final accessed 25/02/21: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845
[61] ibid p7
[62] ibid p13
[63] ibid p14
[64] Williams, Michael C. (2003) Phrases, Photographs, Enemies: Securitization and Worldwide Politics, Worldwide Research Quarterly, Quantity 47, No.4, p516, final accessed 11/03/21: https://educational.oup.com/isq/article/47/4/511/1804912#27522003
[65] Stamnes, Eli (2009) ‘Talking R2P’ and the Prevention of Mass Atrocities, International Duty to Shield, Quantity 1, No.1, p77 final accessed 11/03/21: file:///C:/Customers/tompr/Downloads/1GlobalRespProtect70.pdf
[66] ibid p89
[67] Stevenson, Rosemary (1993) Language, Thought and Illustration, J Wiley and Son, quoted in Balzacq, Thierry (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.11, Problem.2, p174 final accessed 11/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960
[68] Bellamy, Alex J. (2010) The Duty to Shield—5 Years On, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, Vol.24, Problem 2, p158, Final accessed 11/03/21: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x
[69] Evans, Gareth (2005) The Duty to Shield: An Concept Whose Time Has Come … and Gone?, Worldwide Relations, Quantity 22, No.3, p294, final accessed 11/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0047117808094173
[70] Bellamy, Alex J. (2010) The Duty to Shield—5 Years On, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, Vol.24, Problem 2, p160 Final accessed 11/03/21: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x
[71] ibid
[72] Wæver, Ole, Buzan, Barry, de Wilde, Jaap (1998) Safety A New Framework For Evaluation, Lynne Rienner Publishers, p24
[73] ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, pXII, final accessed 12/03/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[74] Normal Meeting (2005) Decision adopted by the Normal Meeting on 16 September 2005, The United Nations, p30, final accessed 12/03/21: https://www.un.org/en/growth/desa/inhabitants/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf
[75] ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, p14, final accessed 12/03/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[76] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p54
[77] Ki-Moon, Ban (2010) Implementing the accountability to Shield, The Stanley Basis, p2, final accessed 12/03/21: https://stanleycenter.org/publications/report/ImplementingR2P_Rpt_31610.pdf
[78] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p79
[79] ICISS (2001) The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, p17, final accessed 12/03/21: https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty
[80] Balzacq, Thierry (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, Vol.11, Problem.2, p172 final accessed 12/03/21: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960
[81] Turner, Nicholas (2013) The Secretary-Normal, in Zyberi, Gentian (2013) An Institutional Strategy To The Duty To Shield, Cambridge College Press, p150
[82] Ulfstein, Geir, Christiansen, Hege Føsund, (2013) The Legality Of The NATO Bombing In Libya, The Worldwide and Comparative Regulation Quarterly, Vol.62, No.1, p161, final accessed 12/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/43302692
[83] Bellin, Eva (2012) Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism within the Center East: Classes from the Arab Spring, Comparative Politics, Vol.44, No.2, p127, final accessed 14/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/23211807
[84] Campbell, Horace G. (2012) NATO’s Failure In Libya: Classes for Africa, Africa Institute of South Africa, p38
[85] Zoubir, Yahia H. (2002) Libya in US Overseas Coverage: From Rogue State to Good Fellow?, Third World Quarterly, Vol.23, No.1, p31, final accessed 14/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/3993575
[86] Gill, Terry D. (2013) The Safety Council, in Zyberi, Gentian (2013) An Institutional Strategy To The Duty To Shield, Cambridge College Press, p103
[87] Keating, Tom (2013) The UN Safety Council on Libya: Legitimation or Dissimulation?, in Hehir, Aidan, Murray, Robert (2013) Libya The Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan, p173-174
[88] United Nations Safety Council (2011) Decision 1973, Adopted by the Safety Council at its 6498th assembly, p1, final accessed on 21/03/21: https://www.undocs.org/S/RES/1973percent20(2011)
[89] ibid p1
[90] ibid p3
[91] Murray, Robert (2013) Humanitarianism, Duty or Rationality? Evaluating Intervention as State Technique, in Hehir, Aidan, Murray, Robert (2013) Libya The Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan, p28
[92] Cameron, David (2011) UN Safety Council Decision (Libya), Quantity 525: debated on Friday 18 March 2011, Hansard, final accessed 21/03/21: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-03-18/debates/11031850000007/UNSecurityCouncilResolution(Libya)
[93] Miliband, Edward (2011) UN Safety Council Decision (Libya), Quantity 525: debated on Friday 18 March 2011, Hansard, final accessed 21/03/21: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-03-18/debates/11031850000007/UNSecurityCouncilResolution(Libya)
[94] Hansard (2011) Column 802: 21 March 2011, final accessed 21/03/21: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/debtext/110321-0004.htm#1103223000001
[95] Anrig, Christian F. (2015) The Belgian, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian Experiences, quoted in Mueller, Karl P. (2015) Precision and Goal: Airpower within the Libyan Civil Conflict, RAND Company, p272, final accessed 21/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/10.7249/j.ctt16f8d7x.16
[96] ibid
[97] Chivvis, Christopher S. (2014) Toppling Qadaffi: Libya and the Limits of Liberal Intervention, Cambridge College Press, p84
[98] Worldwide Institute for Strategic Research (2011) Strategic Feedback, Quantity 17, No.7, p2, final accessed 21/03/21: https://iiss.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13567888.2011.631846?needAccess=true
[99] ibid
[100] Cameron, David, Obama, Barack, Sarkozy, Nicolas (2011) Joint article on Libya: The pathway to peace, Prime Minister’s Workplace, final accessed 21/03/21: https://www.gov.uk/authorities/information/joint-article-on-libya-the-pathway-to-peace–2
[101] ibid
[102] ibid
[103] Cameron, David (2011) UN Safety Council Decision (Libya), Quantity 525: debated on Friday 18 March 2011, Hansard, final accessed 21/03/21: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-03-18/debates/11031850000007/UNSecurityCouncilResolution(Libya)
[104] MAJ (USA) Riley Jr, William S. (2015) Deceived to Intervene: Non-State Actors’ Use of Deception to Elicit Western Intervention in Libya in 2011, American Intelligence Journal, Vol.32, No.2, P35-46, final accessed 21/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/26202134
[105] Kuperman, Alan J. (2013) A Mannequin Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Marketing campaign, Worldwide Safety, Vol.38, No.1, p105-136, final accessed 21/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/24480571
[106] Kuperman, Alan J. (2013) NATO’s Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success?, in Hehir, Aidan, Murray, Robert (2013) Libya The Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan, p203
[107] Wheeler, William, Oghanna, Ayman (2011) After Liberation, Nowhere to Run, The New York Instances, final accessed 21/03/21: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/libyas-forgotten-refugees.html
[108] United Nations Human Rights Council (2012) Report of the Worldwide Fee of
Inquiry on Libya, p1, final accessed 21/03/21: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/19/68
[109] Floyd, Rita (2010) Safety and the Atmosphere, Cambridge College Press, p43
[110]Adams, Simon (2016) Libya, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p772
[111] Campbell, Horace G. (2012) NATO’s Failure In Libya: Classes for Africa, Africa Institute of South Africa, p36
[112]Adams, Simon (2016) Libya, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p773
[113] Mashabane (2011) 6566th Assembly of the United Nations Safety Council: The Scenario in Libya, S/PV.6566, p4, final accessed 23/03/21: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9percent7D/Libyapercent20Spercent20PVpercent206566.pdf
[114] Neild, Barry, Rice, Xan (2011) Gaddafi’s son killed in Nato air strike say Libyan officers, The Guardian, final accessed 23/03/21: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/might/01/libya-muammar-gaddafi-son-nato1
[115] Mashabane (2011) 6566th Assembly of the United Nations Safety Council: The Scenario in Libya, S/PV.6566, p4, final accessed 23/03/21: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9percent7D/Libyapercent20Spercent20PVpercent206566.pdf
[116] Morris, Justin (2016) The Duty to Shield and the usage of power: Remaking the Procrustean mattress?, Cooperation and Battle, Vol.51, No.2, p205, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/48512897
[117] Evans, Gareth, Thakur, Ramesh, Pape, Robert A. (2013) Humanitarian Intervention and the Duty to Shield, Worldwide Safety, Vol.37, No.4, p204, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/24480624
[118] Moses, Jeremy (2013) Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield, Paper Introduced on the Worldwide Research Affiliation Annual Conference San Francisco, p14, final accessed 27/03/21: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845
[119] Zoubir, Yahia A., Rózsa, Erzsébet N. (2012) The Finish of the Libyan Dictatorship: The Unsure Transition, Third World Quarterly, Vol.33, No.7, p1267, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/41698784
[120] Lerman, Eran (2016) The Libyan Tragedy and Its Which means: The Wages of Indecision, Start-Sadat Heart for Strategic Research, p22, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep04761.7
[121] Stuenkel, Oliver, Tourinho, Marcus (2014) Regulating intervention: Brazil and the accountability to guard, cited in Adams, Simon (2016) Libya, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p770
[122] Churkin, Vitaly (2011) 6531st Assembly of the Safety Council: Debate on the Safety of Civilians, S/PV.6531, p9, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/doc/syria-spv-6531.php
[124] Bellamy, Alex J., Williams, Paul D. (2011) The brand new politics of safety? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the accountability to guard, Worldwide Affairs, Vol.87, No.4, pp825-850, final accessed 27/03/21: https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/full-study1.pdf
[125] Evans, Gareth, Thakur, Ramesh, Pape, Robert A. (2013) Humanitarian Intervention and the Duty to Shield, Worldwide Safety, Vol.37, No.4, pp199-214, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/24480624
[126] Heinbecker, Paul (2011) Loads of Credit score to go Round in Gadhafi’s fall, The Ottawa Citizen, Centre for Worldwide Governance Worldwide, final accessed 27/03/21: https://www.cigionline.org/articles/plenty-credit-go-around-gadhafis-fall
[127] Gill, Terry D. (2013) The Safety Council, in Zyberi, Gentian (2013) An Institutional Strategy To The Duty To Shield, Cambridge College Press, pp104-105
[128] Churkin, Vitaly (2011) 6627th Assembly of the Safety Council: The Scenario within the Center East, S/PV.6627, p4, final accessed 27/03/21: https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.6627
[129] Labonte, Melissa (2016) R2P’s Standing as a Norm, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p139
[130] Bellamy, Alex J. (2016) UN safety Council, in Bellamy, Alex J. Dunne, Tim (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press, p258
[131] ibid p259
[132] Cheshire, Tom, Lester, Nick (2021) China sanctions: Boris Johnson praises MPs banned by Beijing for ‘shining a light-weight on gross human rights violations’, Sky Information, final accessed 28/03/21: https://information.sky.com/story/beijing-strikes-back-after-uk-sanctions-and-adds-senior-british-politicians-to-its-own-list-12256981
[133] Heeb, Gina (2021) Biden Ramps Up Sanctions On Russia As Tensions Escalate Over Poisonings, Election Meddling, Forbes, final accessed 28/03/21: https://www.forbes.com/websites/ginaheeb/2021/03/17/biden-ramps-up-sanctions-on-russia-as-tensions-escalate-over-poisonings-election-meddling/?sh=3327c53f3665
[134] United Nations Safety Council (2011) Decision 2009, Adopted by the Safety Council at its 6620th assembly, p3, final accessed on 28/03/21: http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2009
[135] Vericat, José S., Hobrara, Mosadek (2018) From the Floor Up: UN Help to Native Mediation in Libya, Worldwide Peace Institute, p3, final accessed 28/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep19632.6
[136] Fasanotti, Federica Saini (2017) Libya: a nation suspended between previous and future, Studia Diplomatica, Vol.68, No.4, p97, final accessed 28/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/26531669
[137] ibid p98
[138] ibid
[139] Bartu, Peter (2014) Libya’s Political Transition: The Challenges of Mediation, Worldwide Peace Institute, p10, final accessed 29/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep09571.8
[140] Lerman, Eran (2016) The Libyan Tragedy and Its Which means: The Wages of Indecision, Start-Sadat Heart for Strategic Research, p26, final accessed 28/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep04761.7
[141] UN Information (2020) Libyan elections to happen in December 2021: senior UN official, final accessed 28/03/21: https://information.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1077692
[142] UN Information (2020) UN salutes new Libya ceasefire settlement that factors to ‘a greater, safer, and extra peaceable future’, final accessed 28/03/21: https://information.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1076012
[143] United Nations Human Rights Council (2012) Report of the Worldwide Fee of
Inquiry on Libya, p21, final accessed 21/03/21: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/19/68
[144] Kuperman, Alan J. (2013) NATO’s Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success?, in Hehir, Aidan, Murray, Robert (2013) Libya The Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan, p211
[145] Vericat, José S., Hobrara, Mosadek (2018) From the Floor Up: UN Help to Native Mediation in Libya, Worldwide Peace Institute, p3, final accessed 28/03/21: https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep19632.6
[146] Schmitt, Carl (1996) The Idea of the Political, Chicago College Press, p79
Bibliography
Adams, Simon (2016) “Libya”, in Bellamy, Alex J., and Tim Dunne, eds (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press.
Amneus, Diana (2013) “The coining and evolution of accountability to guard: the safety obligations of the state”, in Zyberi, Gentian, ed (2013) An Institutional Strategy to the Duty to Shield, Cambridge College Press.
Anrig, Christian F. (2015) “The Belgian, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian Experiences”, quoted in Mueller, Karl P. (2015) Precision and Goal: Airpower within the Libyan Civil Conflict, RAND Company, https://www.jstor.org/secure/10.7249/j.ctt16f8d7x.16.
Anscombe, Elizabeth (2000) “Intention”, Harvard College Press.
Balzacq, Thierry (2005) “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context.”, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 11 (2): 171–201, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960.
Baodong, Li (2011) “6531st Assembly of the Safety Council: Debate on the Safety of Civilians”, S/PV.6531, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/doc/syria-spv-6531.php.
Bartu, Peter (2014) “Libya’s Political Transition: The Challenges of Mediation”, Worldwide Peace Institute, https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep09571.8.
Bellamy, Alex J (2010) “The Duty to Shield-5 Years On.”, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, 24 (2): 143–69, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x.
Bellamy, Alex J. (2016) “UN safety Council”, in Bellamy, Alex J., and Tim Dunne, eds (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press.
Bellamy, Alex J., and Paul D. Williams (2011) “The New Politics of Safety? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the Duty to Shield.”, Worldwide Affairs, 87 (4): 825–50, https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/full-study1.pdf.
Bellin, Eva (2012) “Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism within the Center East: Classes from the Arab Spring.”, Comparative Politics, 44 (2): 127–49, https://www.jstor.org/secure/23211807.
Cameron, David (2011) UN Safety Council Decision (Libya), Quantity 525: debated on Friday 18 March 2011, Hansard, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-03-18/debates/11031850000007/UNSecurityCouncilResolution(Libya).
Cameron, David, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Barack Obama (2011) “Joint Article on Libya: The Pathway to Peace.”, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/authorities/information/joint-article-on-libya-the-pathway-to-peace–2.
Campbell, Horace (2012) NATO’s Failure in Libya: Classes for Africa, Africa Institute of South Africa.
Chandler, David (2004) “The Duty to Shield? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’.”, Worldwide Peacekeeping, 11 (1): 59–81, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1353331042000228454?needAccess=true.
Cheshire, Tom, and Nick Lester (2021) “China Sanctions: Boris Johnson Praises MPs Banned by Beijing for ‘Shining a Gentle on Gross Human Rights Violations’.”, Sky Information, https://information.sky.com/story/beijing-strikes-back-after-uk-sanctions-and-adds-senior-british-politicians-to-its-own-list-12256981.
Chivvis, Christopher S (2014) “Toppling Qaddafi: Libya and the Limits of Liberal Intervention”, Cambridge College Press.
Churkin, Vitaly (2011) “6531st Assembly of the Safety Council: Debate on the Safety of Civilians”, S/PV.6531, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/doc/syria-spv-6531.php.
Churkin, Vitaly (2011) “6627th Assembly of the Safety Council: The Scenario within the Center East”, S/PV.6627, https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.6627.
Cohen, Jean L (2004) “Whose Sovereignty? Empire versus Worldwide Regulation.”, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, 18 (03): 1–24, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00474.x.
Cunliffe, Philip (2016) “From ISIS to ICISS: A Important Return to the Duty to Shield Report.”, Cooperation and Battle, 51 (2): 233–47, https://www.jstor.org/secure/48512899.
Deng, Francis M, Sadikiel Kimaro, Terrence Lyons, Donald Rothchild, and I William Zartman (1996) Sovereignty as Duty: Battle Administration in Africa, Washington D.C.
Evans, Gareth (2005) “The Duty to Shield: An Concept Whose Time Has Come … and Gone?”, Worldwide Relations, 22 (3): 283–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117808094173.
Evans, Gareth, and Mohamed Sahnoun (2002) “The Duty to Shield.”, Overseas Affairs, 81 (6): 99–110, https://www.jstor.org/secure/20033347.
Evans, Gareth, Ramesh Thakur, and Robert A. Pape (2013) “Humanitarian Intervention and the Duty to Shield.”, Worldwide Safety, 37 (4): 199–214, https://www.jstor.org/secure/24480624.
Fasanotti, Federica Saini (2017) “Libya: A Nation Suspended between Previous and Future.”, Studia Diplomatica, 68 (4): 95–104, https://www.jstor.org/secure/26531669.
Floyd, Rita (2010) “Safety and the Atmosphere: Securitisation Idea and US Environmental Safety Coverage”, Cambridge College Press.
Gill, Terry D. (2013) “The Safety Council”, in Zyberi, Gentian, ed (2013) An Institutional Strategy to the Duty to Shield, Cambridge College Press.
Glanville, Luke (2016) “Sovereignty”, in Bellamy, Alex J., and Tim Dunne, eds (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press.
Hansard (2011) Column 802: 21 March 2011, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/debtext/110321-0004.htm#1103223000001.
Heeb, Gina (2021) “Biden Ramps up Sanctions on Russia as Tensions Escalate over Poisonings.”, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/websites/ginaheeb/2021/03/17/biden-ramps-up-sanctions-on-russia-as-tensions-escalate-over-poisonings-election-meddling/?sh=3327c53f3665.
Heinbecker, Paul (2011) “Loads of Credit score to Go round in Gadhafi’s Fall.”, Centre for Worldwide Governance Innovation, https://www.cigionline.org/articles/plenty-credit-go-around-gadhafis-fall.
Heraclides, Alexis, and Ada Dialla (2015) “Humanitarian Intervention Right now.”, Manchester College Press, https://www.jstor.org/secure/j.ctt1mf71b8.4.
Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) “The Duty to Shield: Report of the Worldwide Fee on Intervention and State Sovereignty.”, IDRC – Worldwide Growth Analysis Centre, https://www.idrc.ca/en/guide/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty.
Worldwide Institute for Strategic Research (2011) “Strategic Feedback”, 17 (7): https://iiss.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13567888.2011.631846?needAccess=true.
Keating, Tom (2013) “The UN Safety Council on Libya: Legitimation or Dissimulation?”, in Hehir, Aidan, and Robert Murray, eds. (2013) Libya, the Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan.
Ki-Moon, Ban (2010) “Implementing the Duty to Shield.”, https://stanleycenter.org/publications/report/ImplementingR2P_Rpt_31610.pdf.
Kuperman, Alan J. (2013) “A Mannequin Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Marketing campaign.”, Worldwide Safety, 38 (1): 105–36, https://www.jstor.org/secure/24480571.
Kuperman, Alan J. (2013) “NATO’s Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success?”, in Hehir, Aidan, and Robert Murray, eds. (2013) Libya, the Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan.
Labonte, Melissa (2016) “R2P’s Standing as a Norm”, in Bellamy, Alex J., and Tim Dunne, eds (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield, Oxford College Press.
Lerman, Eran (2016) “The Libyan Tragedy and Its Which means: The Wages of Indecision”, Start-Sadat Heart for Strategic Research, https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep04761.7.
MAJ (USA) Riley, William S. (2015) “Deceived to Intervene: Non-State Actors’ Use of Deception to Elicit Western Intervention in Libya in 2011.”, American Intelligence Journal, 32 (2): 35–46, https://www.jstor.org/secure/26202134.
Mashabane (2011) “6566th Assembly of the United Nations Safety Council: The Scenario in Libya”, S/PV.6566, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9percent7D/Libyapercent20Spercent20PVpercent206566.pdf.
Miliband, Edward (2011) UN Safety Council Decision (Libya), Quantity 525: debated on Friday 18 March 2011, Hansard, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-03-18/debates/11031850000007/UNSecurityCouncilResolution(Libya).
Morris, Justin. (2016) “The Duty to Shield and the Use of Pressure: Remaking the Procrustean Mattress?”, Cooperation and Battle, 51 (2): 200–215, https://www.jstor.org/secure/48512897.
Moses, Jeremy (2013) “Libya and the Politics of the Duty to Shield.”, https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/deal with/10092/9845.
Murray, Robert (2013) “Humanitarianism, Duty or Rationality? Evaluating Intervention as State Technique”, in Hehir, Aidan, and Robert Murray, eds. (2013) Libya, the Duty to Shield and the Way forward for Humanitarian Intervention, Palgrave Macmillan.
Neild, Barry, and Xan Rice. (2011) “Gaddafi’s Son Killed in Nato Air Strike, Say Libyan Officers.”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/might/01/libya-muammar-gaddafi-son-nato1.
Roe, Paul (2008) “Actor, Viewers(S) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK’s Determination to Invade Iraq.”, Safety Dialogue, 39 (6): 615–35, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0967010608098212.
Schmitt, Carl (1996) “The Idea of the Political”, College of Chicago Press.
Stamnes, Eli (2009) “‘Talking R2P’ and the Prevention of Mass Atrocities.”, International Duty to Shield 1 (1): 70–89, file:///C:/Customers/tompr/Downloads/1GlobalRespProtect70.pdf.
Stevenson, Rosemary (1993) “Language, Thought and Illustration”, J Wiley and Son, quoted in Balzacq, Thierry (2005) “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Company, Viewers and Context.”, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 11 (2): 171–201, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066105052960.
Stritzel, Holger (2014) “Safety in Translation: Securitization Idea and the Localization of Menace”, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stuenkel, Oliver, Tourinho, Marcus (2014) “Regulating intervention: Brazil and the accountability to guard”, cited in Adams, Simon (2016) Libya, in Bellamy, Alex J., and Tim Dunne, eds (2016) The Oxford Handbook of the Duty to Shield. Oxford College Press.
Turner, Nicholas (2013) “The Secretary-Normal”, in Zyberi, Gentian, ed (2013) An Institutional Strategy to the Duty to Shield, Cambridge: Cambridge College Press.
Ulfstein, Geir, and Hege Føsund Christiansen (2013) “THE LEGALITY of the NATO BOMBING in LIBYA.”, The Worldwide and Comparative Regulation Quarterly, 62 (1): 159–71, https://www.jstor.org/secure/43302692.
UN Information (2020) “UN Salutes New Libya Ceasefire Settlement That Factors to ‘a Higher, Safer, and Extra Peaceable Future’.”, UN Information. October 23, 2020, https://information.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1076012.
UN Information (2020) “Libyan Elections to Take Place in December 2021: Senior UN Official.”, UN Information, November 14, 2020, https://information.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1077692.
United Nations (2018) “The UN Constitution.”, Un.org, https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html.
United Nations (2005) “Decision Adopted by the Normal Meeting on 16 September 2005.”, https://www.un.org/en/growth/desa/inhabitants/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf.
United Nations Human Rights Council (2012) “Report of the Worldwide Fee of Inquiry on Libya”, https://undocs.org/A/HRC/19/68.
United Nations Safety Council (2011) “Decision 1973”, Adopted by the Safety Council at its 6498th assembly, https://www.undocs.org/S/RES/1973percent20.
United Nations Safety Council (2011) “Decision 2009”, Adopted by the Safety Council at its 6620th assembly, http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2009.
Vericat, Jose S., and Mosadek Hobrara (2018) “The Fall of the Qaddafi Regime and the Breakdown of Libya.”, Worldwide Peace Institute, https://www.jstor.org/secure/resrep19632.6.
Vuori, Juha A (2008) “Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Making use of the Idea of Securitization to the Research of Non-Democratic Political Orders.”, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 14 (1): 65–99, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066107087767.
Waevar, Ole, Jaap de Wilde, and Barry Buzan (1998) Safety a New Framework for Evaluation, Lynne Rienner.
Wheeler, William, and Ayman Oghanna. (2011) “Opinion | after Liberation, Nowhere to Run.”, The New York Instances, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/libyas-forgotten-refugees.html.
Williams, Michael C. (2003) “Phrases, Photographs, Enemies: Securitization and Worldwide Politics.”, Worldwide Research Quarterly, 47 (4): 511–31, https://educational.oup.com/isq/article/47/4/511/1804912#27522003.
Zoubir, Yahia H, and Erzsebet N Rozsa (2012) “The Finish of the Libyan Dictatorship: The Unsure Transition.”, Third World Quarterly, 33 (7): 1267–83, https://www.jstor.org/secure/41698784.
Zoubir, Yahia H (2002) “Libya in US Overseas Coverage: From Rogue State to Good Fellow?”, Third World Quarterly, 23 (1): 31–53, https://www.jstor.org/secure/3993575.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
