... that led military intervention in Libya, categorically rejected the idea of any intervention in Syria, because it is “ethnically, politically, religiously much more complicated than Libya”.
Last but not least, military intervention in Libya had the backing of the UN Security Council, which is the only international body able to authorize it. The military intervention in Syria is lacking such backing. Nevertheless, it was intervention in Libya that significantly worsened disagreements over practical implementation ...
... about a regime change. The operation in Libya thus exceeded its mandate and the norm of the responsibility to protect was damaged in the eyes of some nations, including China and Russia. This is partly responsible for the failure on the part of the Security Council to take any decisive actions on Syria – Russia now suspects Western nations of pushing their own geopolitical agendas in Syria. Such excess of UN mandate as in Libya might have jeopardized the concept of the responsibility to protect and pushed more countries away from arriving at a solid agreement on the practical implementations of military interventions.
Additionally, having a clear mandate helps to manage ...
... genocide ended and even then it was restricted to mainly observing, monitoring, and ensuring that both parties to the conflict take measures to ensure the safety of civilians[1]. A massive military intervention was needed to halt atrocities, but the Security Council and UN Member States were incapable of responding to the realities on the ground.[2]
While on the other hand, we have Libya with 1,000 – 3,000 casualties and with coalition forces intervening in that country within 3 days of adopting resolution 1973[3] – where the UN Security Council condemned war crimes and crimes against humanity in that country and authorized ...
... will bring more good than harm (Proportional means and reasonable prospect)
the military intervention is authorized by the UN Security Council (Right authority)
Criterion 1: Last resort
The end goal of any conflict, including a military one, is to ... ... able to halt the protracted massacre. The civilian casualty count in Syria continues to rise with each passing day.
While in Libya, military intervention occurred just two weeks after having instated non-military means through the unanimously adopted ...
... decisively? Here, the UN mandate in Rwanda was restricted to mainly observing, monitoring and ensuring that both parties to the conflict take measures to insure the safety of civilians. A massive military intervention was needed to halt atrocities, but the Security Council and Member States were incapable of responding to the realities on the ground.
In contrast, we also have a case like Libya with 1,000-3,000 casualties and the Coalition forces intervening in the country within 3 days of adoption of resolution 1973. In this resolution the UN Security Council condemned war crimes and crimes against humanity in that country and authorized ...
