... there is a strong possibility that military intervention can only make the situation in Syria worse, and can end up bringing more harm than good.
The prospects for a successful military intervention in Syria are much less promising than they were in Libya. According to the estimates of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in 2009 Syria’s military force was four times larger than Libya’s and it was much better equipped. Moreover, Syrian opposition is not unified, like it ...
... different from full scale war. Proportional means would put a constraint on the use of force, which should be minimized during humanitarian interventions.
Coupled with proportional means, a clear mandate authorized by the UN Security Council containing ... ... expect on the ground.
Recent events highlight the importance of having a clear mandate. During voting on resolution 1973 on Libya, Russia remarked that the resolution didn’t provide any clarity on how the no-fly zone would be enforced, the rules ...
... 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 ...
... the UN observer mission, a GA resolution, and presidential statements to condemn the violence, but these still have not been 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 resolution 1970, which wasn’t able to end the mass violence in that time. This decisive action, in an attempt to prevent ...
... How do we know that military intervention is necessary in a given case? What must the death toll rise to in a conflict before the international community decides that they must intervene? Why is it that we chose the course of intervention in the case Libya, but weren’t effectively able to do so in cases like Rwanda, Bosnia and Syria? How do we guarantee that a decision to intervene is a just one – that the objective does not lead to the use of intervention to further the selfish political ...
... doesn’t infringe on state’s sovereignty and that interveners are not guided by selfish ends. Unlawful exercise of humanitarian interventions might pose a threat to Russia causing the spillover effect in the North Caucasus and Central Asia.
... ... on their own. It is too early to draw any conclusions, but even though it seems that humanitarian intervention worked out in Libya, we still should keep in mind that Syria is a much more complex and troubled country. The intervention may shed even more ...
... external interventions sometimes cause other indicators to change, for example, military interventions might spur more violence that would lead to the increase of Group Grievance’s score or they might affect the economic decline. It implies that humanitarian interventions might lead to a drastic increase in county’s score. Let’s take a look at Libya. According to FSI 2011 (the Index is based on the data from 2010) Libya scored 68,7 and after military intervention in 2011 it drastically increased its score to 84,9. Once again, the lower the score, the better. So, if before the country was steadily ...
