Another nail in the coffin

(See you in court.)

.. of Blair and Bush pretending that they ever actually intended to follow the international law when it came to Iraq. From tomorrow's Guardian, with the wonderful Philippe Sands prominent again.

I'll write more soon, I promise - been rather swamped with work.

More on Bin Laden's Death

(Another critique)

"Tobbes, it's the right answer for the wrong legal reasoning."

Story of my life.

I'm just travelling, but my critiquer's view is that yesterday's article reflects the US legal approach, and that there is a better approach based around bin Laden as an "unprivileged belligerent". But the problem that we run into revolves around the legal status of non-state actors in non-international armed conflicts.

I'll post more when I've had a chance to have a chat and a think.

Was killing Osama bin Laden legal?

(Osama bin Laden, now the subject of more conspiracy theories than Elvis.)

I write this after a delightful evening discussing this subject with some students at Bennington College, to whom and in particular to Professor Eileen Scully, I'm very grateful - it was good fun. Before we start, I should stress that this post considers only whether the US action in killing Osama bin Laden (OBL*) was legal, and not whether or not it was a good idea from a policy perspective.

To do this, we need to break the question into two elements: 

Question 1: Was it legal to kill bin Laden at all? 

Question 2: If so, was it legal to kill him in Pakistan?

Q1: Was OBL a Combatant?
The first consideration that must be satisified is whether OBL was a combatant in an armed conflict, in order to invoke the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Without this nexus of conflict, the targeted killing of OBL would be illegal - murder.

(An armed attack. RIP.)

Fortunately, determining that OBL was involved in a conflict of some sort after his 1996 Declaration of War on the United States, and that 9/11 attacks is reasonably straightforward, though the kind of armed conflict is open to debate. LOAC recognises two categories of conflict, each with different definitions of combatants: International Armed Conflicts governed by the 1st Additional Protocol  to the Geneva Conventions (AP I, 1977), and Non-International Armed Conflicts governed by the 2nd Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (AP II, 1977). 

Combatant Status under AP I - International Armed Conflict

War between States represents the classical form, preferably with armies of two or more competing sides fighting pitched battles, usually resulting in clear winners and losers. Under the formulation, both sides began the war holding territory, and from the 18th Century onwards, armies generally wore uniforms and had a clearly discernible chain of command. Wars of this sort still take place, of course - the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a good approximation of the classical case, in which one force overwhelms and occupies another country, and imposes direct rule for a period. In this sense, it would've looked familiar to European diplomats negotiating the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. 

Who is a combatant in these interstate conflicts? Simply, anyone who is not in the military as defined in Article 43 of AP I. And if you're not a combatant you must initially at least be treated as a civilian, and would therefore be immune from direct attack. But being a combatant is a privileged status itself - it means that you're entitled to PoW Status, something explicitly denied to spies (AP I, Article 46) and mercenaries (AP I, Article 47).

The major attraction for lawyers is that combatants who are not prisoners, shipwrecked or otherwise hors d'combat are always specifically targetable. Any attack must meet the test of distinction, military advantage and proportionality, but this is true of all attacks: the important point is that in an international armed conflict the status of the combatant is constant for long periods of time.

Combatant Status under AP II - Non-International Armed Conflict

By contrast, the (much shorter) AP II is specific for those internal conflicts that rise above the minima of 

"internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence" 

described in Art 1(2) of AP II. AP II recognises that in many civil wars and rebellions, the rebels are frequently part-time combatants, and therefore AP II details in Art 13(3) that 

"Civilians shall enjoy th[is] protection ... unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities."

In other words, in the limiting case, the point at which a guerilla puts down her weapon, she loses combatant status and reverts to civilian status. In doing so, she cannot be targeted and therefore cannot be legally killed. 

(An interesting book. One for a future commentary.) 

As a result, determining what constitutes direct participation in hostilities (DPH) is critical, and has resulted in a significant ICRC study published in 2009. (This study is not without controversy, but Art. 13(3) is clear enough for our purposes.)

Was OBL a combatant? Did he take a direct participant in hosilities?
It's clear that depending on the extent which OBL was involved in command and control (C2) and AQ fundraising (presumably determined by intelligence) one could make a case for that though he appears to have been holed in his Abbottabad Compound, he was involved in directing, funding and inciting attacks on western targets. Indeed, assuming that the courier network wasn't there exclusively to collect take-out pizzas, it is pretty likely that OBL had a direct role in hostilities.

If proved, this role would confirm OBL's status as a combatant in AP I, and for the period in which he was undertaking these activities, a combatant under AP II. As a result, I assess that given sufficient evidence, it could reasonably conclude that OBL was a combatant, and that irrespective of your characterisation of the type of conflict, OBL could be a legitimate target.

Naturally, once OBL became a legitimate target, any attack on him would need to meet the normal criteria of discrimination of civilians, military advantage and proportionality before it could be considered legal. And the reports that President Obama elected to send in ground forces in a much riskier attack rather than simply bombing the compound strongly suggests to me that these criteria were being very carefully weighed in the US decision-making process, and that the US elected to expose their forces to greater risk to ensure that the attack itself was proportionate, precise and legal. Good for them.

(Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir, Harrumpher-in-Chief.)

Q2: Was it legal to kill OBL in Pakistan?
With Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir, his diplomats and security leaders harrumphing that killing OBL in Pakistan 'violated Pakistani sovereignty' and was by implication illegal, it is important to assess these claims.

The first point is that there is no doubt that Pakistan's sovereignty was violated by US forces; they flew in in the middle of the night, didn't stop to have their passports stamped, engaged in a 40 minute firefight, killed a number of people, collected (ie, stole) a large amount of documents and electronic equipment, jumped into their helicopters (again, without having their passports stamped leaving Pakistan) and flew away into the night back to Afghanistan. This is a pretty major violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

But sovereignty is not absolute.

Pakistan has an obligation - in common with all other States - to ensure that its' territory is not used by non-State actors for the planning and commissioning of illegal activities, including terrorism. If it does not, there are two effects: first, under Article 8 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the State takes legal responsibility for these actions, and second, the State that is threatened can invoke the doctrine of "Self-Help" to remove the threat IF ALL OTHER AVENUES HAVE FAILED.**

Given that the Government of Pakistan in general - and elements of the Pakistani public sector, notably the military and the ISI spy agency in particular - have had a "complex" relationship with salafist jihadis since the 1980s (ranging from sponsorship, funding and training to full-blown conflict against them depending on the time, place and level of threat to Pakistan), it would be unsurprising if the US were to conclude that Pakistan was either unwilling or unable to confront OBL in his Abbottabad compound. Worse, given that the Pakistani security network was either incompetent or colluding with OBL, the US could not have had any confidence that simply providing a name and address would result in a successful Pakistani arrest operation. Consequently, the temporary violation of Pakistani sovereignty, whilst non-trival, was in my view justified, and that therefore the attack was legal as legitimate self-help.

Overall, then, on the narrow question of whether OBL was a legitimate target I would argue that he probably was, and that the manner in which the US conducted the operation in Pakistan was also legal.

*Yes, I know the other transliteration is Usama and therefore UBL. I prefer Osama and OBL, and it's my blog. Points? Questions? I thank you.

**Ang, this is for you. We can argue about self-help later.

UK publishes Libya legal advice (sort of)

(Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG addressing the Iraq Enquiry. Thank-you for everything.)

Appearing at the Iraq Enquiry last year, former UK Foreign Office Deputy Legal Adviser Elizabeth Wilmshurst (now Head of the Chatham House International Law Programme) - and the only person to resign over the illegality of the 2003 Iraq invasion - described the 2003 legal and policy process as  ... lamentable. There should have been greater transparency within government about the evolving legal advice" .  

Quite right too. 

So it was with real interest that I saw a note from Nick Clegg to LibDem party members this morning on the Libyan situation which includes this:

"Colonel Gaddafi’s treatment of his own people has been brutal, savage and wholly unacceptable. We have worked with Libya’s regional neighbours, especially the Arab League, and countries across the globe, to secure a resolution in UN Security Council. This resolution will allow us to act lawfully  in deploying our forces to up-hold a ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya.

The Prime Minister gave a statement yesterday, which you can read here. And on Monday we will have a full debate in the House of Commons, followed by a vote. In addition we will be publishing a summary of the legal advice of the Attorney-General. 

That is the right approach. This is a coalition government that will act decisively to protect innocent lives and uphold universal human rights. But one which will do so working with, not against, international law and the international community."

Shortly, therefore, we should get to read a summary of Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC's thoughts. Great, I look forward to it. 

Even better, Nick, you could publish the whole thing, and not just the summary.

   
Update: Here's the UK legal advice. Very sensible.

Pearl Roundabout - A metaphor for Bahrain?

Prior to the non-intervention GCC intervention, Pearl Roundabout in Manama, Bahrain, used to look like this:

Perhaps dull, but it became a focal point for the Bahrain democracy movement. Which is why it now looks like this:

Shameful for the Bahraini Government: it is clearly time for dialogue and compromise, not repression.

The surprising Mr. Hague

(The surprisingly radical Mr. Hague. Good.)

It’s tempting (and inevitably risky) to give into hyperbole when commentating on current international events – let alone on the concomitant international legal developments: this particular road to perdition is long, wide and well trodden. But in looking at yesterday’s UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973 (2011)), I feel a little hyperbole may for once be justified. In fact, there’s every chance that the world changed more than a little bit for the better with the passage of UNSCR 1973.

(Hopefully that’s enough hyperbole for everyone.)

Some background. 

In the words of an American lawyer friend of mine, international law simply doesn’t exist. “Where does it come from? Who enforces it?”, she asks.  Despite her cynicism, International law has several sources. First and foremost, it is created by Treaties – in other words obligations freely assumed by States – by decisions of international judicial bodies, by the UN Security Council operating as a legislature by passing binding Security Council Resolutions, arguably by UN GA Resolutions – e.g. the famous 1950 ‘Uniting for Peace Resolution’, and occasionally through eminent legal scholarship. But the most interesting route of international legal development is through the developments of customary international law.

Of these, customary international law is both the most interesting and most difficult because it is based on State Practice – and as it develops, it becomes binding on all States whether they’ve explicitly adopted it or not if it is accepted by enough States. (This is how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – widely accepted as customary international law –applies to Saudi Arabia which explicitly rejected the UDHR in 1948.) Custom is challenging because by its nature it is continuously evolving, and because it can bind States without their consent.

The crucial developmental nexus for customary international law occurs when a State acts in a certain manner because it believes that it is legally obliged to do so even though this legal obligation doesn’t exist in Treaty Law, a UNSCR, or an international judgement. This is known as opino juris. And it is in this that the Libyan crisis has been so important in humanitarian intervention, especially in the developing Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s commentary to the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FASC) earlier this week was fascinating. Hague explained that his legal advice allowed for a humanitarian exception to Art 2(4) and Art 2(7) in cases of systematic and sustained human rights abuses without explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council. 

 (Sir Daniel Bethlemhem QC. Thank-you very much.)

I’ve don’t recall this argument being advanced by any major power since R2P was outlined in the Conclusions to the 2005 UN World Summit. This is a major step forward – and I salute Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC, the UK Foreign Office Legal Advisor and his team, for taking this courageous but legally accurate and responsible position. Better, this position seems to be shared with France, and (extrapolating wildly) I suspect that this Anglo-Franco position that a further UNSCR was not required would have had a salutary effect on the Council as a whole - and Russia and China in particular. Though both abstained, neither had an interest in allowing R2P outside of the Council's auspices to get too far out of hand (lest it be used against their interests). The result has been that the UN Security Council has mandated the extraordinarily intrusive UNSCR 1973.

UNSCR 1973 is a remarkable document. It starts by defenestrating the legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime in Operative Paragraph 2 (OP2) noting the Security Council:

“Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people”

Other than calls for the end of apartheid in South Africa and denunciation of Ian Smith’s rebel regime in Rhodesia from the 1960s onwards, this is remarkably un-UN language: it explicitly states that a UN Member Sate Government (which, remember, was until recently on the UN Human Rights Council in a grotesque parody of that body’s stated mission) is not responding to the Libyan people’s legitimate demands.

Given that the UN’s position on non-intervention in the affairs of Sovereign States is enshrined in Art 2(7) and one that has been a shibboleth for oppressive regimes worldwide, this is quite remarkable. I’d like to think that the Burmese and Zimbabwean UN Missions understood the implications for their own authoritarian regimes, and wrote telegrams to explain this new and (potentially uncomfortable) point for them. 

OP4 is the meat of UNSCR 1973, authorising

“… Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General …”

This reflects the bias in the 2005 R2P language of the desirability of a leading role for the responsible regional grouping – in the case of Libya, both the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference have endorsed a No Fly Zone (NFZ).  But crucially, UNSCR 1973 goes much further authorising Member States:

“… to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory …”

This is not an NFZ, which I argued last week would be a reasonably pointless gesture, as it could see allied aircraft pointlessly burning holes in the sky, impotently watching Gaddafi’s forces’ massacre of the opposition. (Which, after all, is roughly what the good Colonel and his son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi* have promised to do.)

Instead, UNSCR 1973 explicitly foresees the use of airpower and naval gunfire to protect civilians wherever they are in Libya. Taken at face value, this implies support to the Libyan rebels in attacking and defeating Gaddafi’s forces wherever they are in Libya, and with it the Gaddafi regime. 

 (Look, all I wanted to do was order a pizza. Is that too much to ask?)

Indeed, a narrow black-letter reading could even be used to justify limited foreign ground troops, provided that any foreign ground troops were not a “foreign occupation force of any form”. In other words, theoretically at least, the legality of deploying ground troops is about the intention and duration of their deployment, rather than an absolute bar against foreign troops at all. And this flexibility could be very useful, by, for example facilitating the deployment of liaison staff to the anti-Gaddafi forces – or even the deployment of Forward Air Controllers** to coordinate strike operations. 

In other words UNSCR 1973 is a massive step forward for R2P, giving a coalition of the willing in concert with regional groupings broad authority to protect civilians and to attack a repressive regime to do so. It should also leave the world’s remaining repressive autocracies with another early incentive to commence dialogue with whatever civil society groups they’ve failed to stamp out. One suspects that UNSCR 1973 is one precedent that they’ll be keen to forget in a hurry. Somehow I rather doubt that UNSCR 1973  will slide into obscurity so soon.

(Another F3 shot. Good!)

What is needed now is for the immediate implementation of UNSCR 1973 to save Benghazi and Tobruk, and then roll back the Gaddafi regime’s power. I only wish I was still involved*** to be able to play a small role in implementing one of the greatest humanitarian interventions in the postwar period – done successfully this will in time be seen in the same bracket as Kosovo, DR Kampuchea and East Pakistan.

And unlike these three, it will be explicitly legal.

*As an LSE graduate, I do hope that the School can find a route to strip Saif al-Islam of his LSE PhD. If he cheated, as is alleged, then so much the better.

** Or Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP) or Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) or whatever the most recent Newspeak is for Forward Air Controllers.

*** As the sign outside 111(F) Sqn Hardened Aircraft Shelters at RAF Leuchars said words to this effect (for the next few weeks) “This Squadron is held at very high readiness to project fighter power worldwide. Are you ready?” Yes! F3s from Luqa, Malta fighting for Libyan liberty would be a fitting finale for the flick-knife of death. Salve, F3.

When is intervention not Intervention?

 (If invited, this is not the intervention force you're looking for.)

Regular readers of this blog* will know that I revere the UN Charter. And "revere" is not too strong a word, as international law has gained some of the status of a secular religion; indeed, like most religions the legal fraternity has its fair share of fundamentalists. But to stretch the biblical metaphor to breaking point, the UN Charter reflects its convoluted negotiation process, and like The Bible, the Charter has lots of internal tensions / contradictions. 

 (Blue book fundamentalism starts here)

The interplay between the Charter's Preamble on the Human Rights and Article 2(7)  on non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States illustrates these tensions perfectly. The Preamble talks of

"reaffirm[ing] faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person in the equal rights of men and women"

and Article 2(7) says in part:

“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 … but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

There is clearly tension – when does protection of human rights trump non-intervention? If so, when and under what circumstances, and with what protections?

So how does this work in the real world?

 Pearl Square, Manama
(Note to editors: This has not been facilitated by a foreign non-intervening intervention.)

Bahrain

On Monday, 1000 Saudi soldiers togetherwith 150 armoured personnel carriers and 500 UAE policemen arrived in Bahrain, at the request of the Bahraini Government, as that Government believes it requires reinforcement to quell the pro-democracy movement that has blossomed in the "Arab spring". Combined with yesterday's declaration of a three-month State of Emergency, summarily suspending Bahrain’s human rights protections, Bahrain’s Government is effectively suppressing dissent with the force of foreign arms.

However, as this is at the request of the Government, the Government argues that this isn't intervention - instead it is (presumably) collective self-defence against external subversion. Interestingly, this is the same argument used by the Government of Republic of South Vietnam to legitimate the US-led coalition in what became the Vietnam War. As it isn't intervention, there is allegedly no violation of Article 2(7).

Libya

As you look at a map of the Middle East, move a few countries to the left on the other side of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in Libya, Muamar Gaddafi is testing the other end of Article 2(7) by killing large numbers of Libyan civilians.

(The rather wonderful green book from the Very Important Book Box - VIBB)

So how much latitude should there be for Gaddafi to kill his own civilians? In the rather wonderful “Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary” edited by Bruno Simma (now Justice Simma of the International Court of Justice, ICJ), the stated law comes from the famous dictum in the Nicaragua Case from 1986:

“In view of the generally accepted formulations, the principle [of non-interference] forbids all States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other States. A prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters on which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural systems and the formulation of foreign policy.”**

This is not very helpful – an intervention’s not allowed if it’s not allowed. But it is if it is. Hmm. Fortunately, in 1923, the ICJ’s predecessor the Permanent Court of International Justice defined the distinction in Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco , noting to the effect that matters that are solely within the domestic jurisdiction or a State are such “matters which are not, in principle, regulated by international law… with respect to which States, therefore remained sole judge”***

Sounds sensible.

So if the controlling law is your international obligations, then Art 2(7) – the modern repository of the ancient law of non-intervention – ceases to cover Governments that are violating their international obligations. Specifically, this means that genocide – due to the 1948 Genocide Convention – and crimes against humanity**** – due to customary international law – cannot be wrapped in a cloak of Art 2(7) impunity. Indeed, this has been the case since the 1960s when aparthied South Africa consistently lost the argument that Art 2(7) meant that the UN has no locus to criticise the apartheid system.

(Victory, for some. Presumably a demonstration in favour of more billboards.)

This means that Gadaffi et al in Libya are not covered by Art 2(7). (Nor are the autocrats in Burma / Myanmar.)

But Bahrain? Democracy – pace Teson – is not protected by an international Treaty, so it is harder to argue that autocrats can’t phone a friend and borrow some troops to resist demands for the autocracy’s end. So the beach island holiday for the Saudi troops is probably legal, as long as they don’t actually engage in violence against Bahrain’s citizens. At this point, however, it would lose this legitimacy.

I realise that this is a slightly depressing result: it would be much more compelling to conclude that these are all things that need to be protected and that At 2(7) is outdated State-centric nonsense. But at least concluding that Art 2(7) is not a torturer’s charter is a start, and refining the concepts of R2P going forward will build upon it.

* There are at least some. And you know who you are.

** Nicaragua, ICJ Reports (1986), pp. 14, 107 para. 205.

*** PCIJ, Series B No. 4 (Feb 7, 1923), p. 24, in Simma  p. 157.

**** For these purposes, crimes against humanity are the same as war crimes committed against your own people.

Libyan NFZ: Hard? Easy?

(F3s off on patrol one last time.....)

No Fly Zones sound impressive. And indeed, they can be! Lots of jets patrolling the skies and stopping nasty dictators (e.g. Saddam Hussein) from using air power to schwack good guys (e.g. Kurds) at little cost and virtually no risk to our servicepeople. Much better than the dirty, dangerous expensive business of putting soldiers on the ground in unfamiliar countries with language and cultural barriers to fight someone else's war. In this sense, the NFZ is the epitome of modern gesture politics - a modern equivalent of sending a gunboat - looks great, little if any risk to us, and satisfies the dangerous disease of "do-somethingitis" that often infects politicians. ("Something must be done!" etc etc)

NFZs for humanitarian purposes are apparently legally convenient: the Northern and Southern Iraqi NFZs were not directly covered by a UN Security council Resolution. UNSCR 688 didn't expressly authorise them, and no-one (with the possible exception of the Iraqi regime) seemed to mind too much, even when it came to so-called "Response Options" which were preplanned attacks in response to Iraqi air-defence activity. Better, over the period of 12 years and more than 180,000 sorties, no manned coalition aircraft were shot down. So, an NFZ appears to provide a low-cost effort for policing - a policy initially proposed by Winston Churchill in the 1920s.

Jolly good.

(S-300PMU-2 / SA-20 GARGOYLE: An issue)

But there are issues. Specifically, there is the Libyan integrated air defence system (IADS), which in all likelihood would have to be deactivated / destroyed before any serious NFZ partoling could get underway. According to Wikipedia the IADS may include S-300PMU-2 / SA-20 GARGOYLE, which is a rather dangerous issue. As in a Corporal Jones "Don't Panic" dangerous sort of an issue....

(Libyan Mi-35 HIND. Bad news if you're a protestor - photo by Chris Lofting)

Second, the real threat to the Libyan civilians /protesters / rebels is from ground forces operating with helicopters much more than jet fighter-bombers (FJs). And as finding and shooting down low-flying helicopters is a non-trivial task, implementing an NFZ that stops helicopters flying requires 24-hour coverage, or the political will to disable or destroy the Libyan AF on the ground.

Third, this means that we're into air attacks against Libyan armed forces targets, so why not be effective by bombing the tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers that are being used against the non-Gaddafi forces. Which runs the serious risk - which needs to be acknowledged up front and addressed - that in imposing an NFZ we are on a slippery slope to actual humanitarian intervention on the side of the anti-Gaddafi forces. On this basis, we'd be well advised to just fess up and get on with it robustly - whilst robustly defending the legality of the intervention. More force sooner to remove Gaddafi's regime will save more lives, so if the international community is serious about it, let's get on with it.

 

 ("Now Dave, have you really thought through this 'No Fly Zone' business...?")

All of which seems to have missed British Prime Minister David Cameron when he proposed an NFZ, leading to the humiliation by US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates (seen chatting with "call me Dave" above in 2010) to basically rubbish it as "loose talk" (Ouch!). Why does Gates' view matter? Um, because the UK cannot begin to think about establishing an NFZ without the US. (Especially now after the continuing cuts following the SDSR.) In fact, no-one can - any NFZ will be US-led as only the USAF and the US Navy have the capacity and the capability to do it.

So by all means have an NFZ, preferably under UN, Arab League, African Union or even conceivably OIC auspices. But to be effective in saving Libyan lives by removing this awful regime, invoke the humanitarian exception to the Art 2(4) prohibition on the use of force and attack Gaddafi's instruments of repression.

And do it now.

Libya - a case for R2P?

(F3s finale over Libya? Sadly, probably not. Fuel-to-Noise. Go!)

There's been some talk about setting up a No-Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya in the last few days. Whether this is a good idea militarily is a debate for others to have, but the legal position is clear enough: if the Security Council passes a Chapter VII resolution under Article 41 or Article 42, then it is legal to use force to enforce it.

If the Russians veto a draft resolution permitting an NFZ, then the questions around humanitarian intervention and R2P will resurface. As I blogged last week, there's a serious discussion to be had, but in my view there is an humanitarian exception and an NFZ is a decent way to start protecting the Libyan people from the depredations of the Gaddafi regime's death-throws. It is unlikely to be enough - Libya is vast and the number of aircraft that would be required to have standing patrols over all of the airfields under Gaddafi loyalist command, along with the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) support to ensure that surface to air missiles stayed on their launch rails, would be immense.

(More heroic F3 turning and burning into the sunset....)

But it would be a start.

Am I my brother's keeper?

(No sign of Muammar. An oversight.)

Cain, Abel and Muammar Gaddafi are perhaps not the most obvious of bedfellows. But Cain's riposte to God after killing the mysterious and unexplained death of Abel (a matter that remains sub judice)* is as pertinent now as it was to biblical author: what responsibility do we carry singly and jointly for the well-being of our fellow human beings? Relatedly, how does this operate in a world in which Article 2(7) of the UN Charter restates the most ancient tenet of international law - non-interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? In short, are we the keepers of our Libyan sisters and brothers as they face the threat of annihilation by their own government in a (final) spasm of murderous repression? 

Let's look at the notion of non-intervention, at the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the notion of an international "Responsibility to Protect", known as R2P in txtspk.

Non-Intervention - the international community's prime directive?

If non-intervention is a cardinal rule, then Cain is right and as long as it happens next door, it's no concern of mine: I am implacably not my brother's keeper.

Some countries argue that non-intervention is the cornerstone of the international system, and that this has been the case for centuries. This is, of course, palpably risible nonsense. Advocates of non-intervention generally mean that they are in favour of non-intervention in their affairs; it is therefore no surprise that the strongest and most persistent advocates of the non-interventionist mantra include PR China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, all of which have human rights records that they would wish to protect from outside scrutiny or interference. 

It is also important to note both that history is based around countries intervening in each others' internal affairs, and that intervention spans a much wider ambit than simply the use of force - sanctions, consumer boycotts, trade agreements reflect power realities and are used by stronger states to coerce weaker ones. Try asking an Irish or Greek politician about the amount of non-intervention that they’ve had to accept in their internal affairs in the form of a financial bailout – and no shots were fired. In other words, intervention in the internal affairs of other states is the norm, and the non-interventionist language in Article 2(7) is the aberration. 

 (Do we protect them? If not you, who? If not now, when?)

Humanitarian Intervention

Back in the early 1970s the International Law Association (ILA) created a framework for humanitarian intervention** which was picked up over the next decade led by Fernando Teson, an Argentine lawyer proposed along with some American lawyers a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. As a legal proposition, humanitarian intervention proposes an exception to the ban on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity or massive human rights abuses where there is no option due to time or because the Security Council is deadlocked. 

All good. (Except that Teson and his proto-neo-conservative American chums decided that not being a democracy was a gross violation of human rights, and then used this to propound the deeply problematic notion of "pro-democratic wars"; Teson's supporters tended to find themselves on the hawkish/paranoid Republican right, some of whom went so far as to suggest a NATO invasion of central Europe to drive out the Soviet totalitarians. No prizes from your blogmaster for guessing the likely outcome of that particular policy choice if you'd tried to implement it.)

In one of those strange historical oddities,*** Teson's champions today are on the left, under the banner of solidarism. Nicholas Wheeler's "Saving Strangers" is the classic exposition of the need for a framework for where there should be an exception to the UN Charter rules on non-intervention and bars on the use of force. As Wheeler shows, the three classic Cold War interventions that could have been presented as humanitarian interventions (India in East Pakistan/Bangladeshi War of Independence, 1971; Tanzania in Uganda, 1978; Vietnam in Kampuchea, 1979) never claimed any humanitarian rationale at the time. Kosovo in 1999 is a partial example of humanitarian intervention, but some structural elements were not in accord with the ILA's 1974 blueprint. Similarly, UK/US/FR extending UNSCR 688 to (and arguably beyond) breaking point for Operation Provide Comfort with the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones over Iraq.

(Op Northern Watch - aka heroic Jags over northern Iraq. Ahh....)

So under humanitarian intervention, you can present yourself as your sister's keeper, but you don't always get a chance to do anything about it - and if you do want to do something about it, then you need to make sure you work through the ILA check list, and crucially, you need to make explicit that it is a humanitarian intervention at the time that you do it. 

Bottom line: humanitarian intervention provides an optional route for States that want to intervene - if the world is indifferent, humanitarian intervention doctrine does not require the community of nations to do anything about massive human rights violations. Just ask Jim Hacker - he explains it far more eloquently than me; the Russians were indeed too strong...

Responsibility to Protect (R to P, R2P)

The 2005 UN World Summit outcomes document specifically recognised the need for a responsibility for collective action to stop "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" - which are all defined in the ICC Rome Statute. This is the genesis for Responsibility to Protect - a key turning point in international law. 

Paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit outcomes states in part:

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. 

Which is a real drafting hodgepodge, betraying the lack of unanimity in the international community. The answer appears to be that there is no unilateral right of intervention, the Security Council should do the right thing but there may be a regional organisation get out clause. Or not. 

So R2P is not clear yet: NGOs are pushing for clarity and for the world to move towards a Responsibility to Protect. Let's see how we're getting on. We need to speak clearly that the international community does have responsibilities and Libyan-style repression is a crime, pure and simple.

* This is a legal blog. You get legal jokes - bear with me, some of them are even funny.

**The ILA's Third Interim Report of the Subcommittee on the International Protection of Human Rights by General International Law, New Dehli, 1974

***For example the manner in which the British Conservatives have moved from being the principal supporters of British membership of the EEC to being dominated by anti-EU forces, whereas the British left moved from visceral anti-EEC agitation based on the notion that the EEC was an anti-worker capitalist plot to being broadly in favour of the EU as a method of promoting workers' interests.