The Libyan war broke up more than five months ago. The United Nations Security Council resolution no. 1973, approved last March, authorized a no-fly zone in Libya and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi, in order both to end the war and to protect Libyan civilians. Such a resolution apparently tries to guarantee human rights, but it has a wider significance: it is real shift in the UN's mission, whose main task, peace preservation, from now on can became something else, maybe something dangerous. Resolution no. 1973, authorizing a high level of military interference in the domestic affairs of the North African country, is in contrast with the UN Charter: article 2 par. 7 of the UN Charter declares that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…” ; article 39 authorizes military coercion against a State only if there is a violation or a threat to the peace between States. It is quite clear that what is occurring in the North African country is an internal crisis, consequently any foreign interference is forbidden by international law. Most probably Gaddafi is guilty of barbarity against civilians, and that is a clear violation of international law, specifically article 3 common of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the second Protocol of 1977. These violations, if proved, are a war crime and the Colonel should respond to them at the International Criminal Court (ICC). But that does still not justify a military intervention on Libya by foreign countries. Resolution no. 1973 changes modern Jus ad bellum (the set of rules which specifies the cases when use of military force is legal) establishing a new legal principle: in order to save civilians from persecutions, the international community is authorized to intervene in any internal disorder. Two basic principles of the international order, principle of sovereignty and principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, are swept away by the principle of “responsibility of civil protection” which is called for in resolution no. 1973. This could entail that any future domestic crises can justify foreign military interference, because in almost every crisis there are civilian victims. This could mean that if a State wants to attack another one without breaking the international law, it could promote an uprising and civil conflict in the second one, financing insurgents and providing them with weapons. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that in a civil war a foreign, the State is responsible if insurgents are de facto agents of the foreign State. In those cases, the conflict is not civil, but international, and a country can be punished by UN security system. But what is the border between irrelevant and decisive assistance which a foreign govern provides to rebels? Unfortunately international law is still vague; consequently each State can provide insurgents with weapons in order to promote or begin a civil war, which probably will not have consequences for the foreign State. Moreover, after UNSC resolution no. 1973, foreign States with veto power can obtain a UNSC resolution that will give them the right to make war. What is the difference between Libya and Syria? In both countries civilians are in great danger. Why is the principle of “responsibility of protection” called for in Libya but not for Syria? Why was the same principle was not called during the Sudan crisis, the longest African civil war, or during war in Bosnia and Herzegovina? If the principle of responsibility of protection lies on discretion of Great Powers, there is a risk that the principle will be used for power politics instead of human rights. BM
