In the class discussion with non-residential students on August 31, I had mentioned that India views Humanitarian Intervention with deep suspicion, while other countries refer to Responsibility to Protect. I had mentioned that Professor VS Mani, an eminent I Law scholar had delivered lectures at the Hague on HI in 1994. You can find his work in the Additional Resources folder and I am pasting an extract from my article on his body of work which was published in the Indian Journal of International Law last year. (Pakanati, Rajdeep. 2018. Reading Professor V. S. Mani from an international relations perspective. Indian Journal of International Law. Volume 58, Issue 1–2, pp 57–83.)
Professor Mani’s analysis on humanitarian intervention clearly lays
out the problems that come with it and if one were to borrow the
analysis from the Report prepared by the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the operation principles of
R2P reveal the gamut of problems facing HI.
Operational principles
A. Clear objectives: clear and unambiguous mandate at all times, and resources
to match.
B. Common military approach among involved partners; unity of command;
clear and unequivocal communications and chain of command.
C. Acceptance of limitations, incrementalism and gradualism in the application
of force, the objective being protection of a population, not defeat or a state.
D. Rules of engagement, which fit the operational concept: are precise; reflect
the principle of proportionality; and involve total adherence to international
humanitarian law.
E. Acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal objective.
F. Maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organisations.59
If we focus on the Libya case, the United Nations Security Council
passed Resolution 1973 which led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone
and naval blockage in the name of protecting civilians. In hindsight we
see the full gamut of problems identified in the R2P Report of 2005.60
On the day of the authorization of UNSC 1973 one would have been
very sympathetic in light of threats issued by the then Libyan leader
Col. Gaddafi to attack the city of Benghazi,61 but the intense scrutiny of Libya by the UNSC while ignoring similar events in Syria or Yemen
reveal the problems of selectivity of HI.
Footnote 60: If we look at the transcript of the 6498th Meeting of the UNSC held on 17 March 2011 and led to the adoption of UNSCR 1973, the remarks of the Indian Representative reveal the misgivings about the planned HI.
Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri (India): India has been following with serious concern the developments in
Libya, which have led to the loss of numerous lives and injuries to many more. We are very concerned about the welfare of the civilian population and of foreigners in Libya. We deplore the use of force, which is totally unacceptable and must not be resorted to.
The Secretary-General has appointed a Special Envoy, who has just visited Libya. We support his
appointment and his mission. However, we have not had the benefit of his report or even a report from the Secretariat on his assessment as yet. That would have given us an objective analysis of the situation on the ground. The African Union is also sending a high-level panel to Libya to make serious efforts for a peaceful end to the crisis there. We must stress the importance of political efforts, including those of the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy, to address the situation. The Council has today adopted a resolution that authorizes far-reaching measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya. We also do not have clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who will participate and with what assets, and how these measures will exactly be carried out. It is of course very important that there be full respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya.
The financial measures that are proposed in the resolution could impact directly or through indirect
routes the ongoing trade and investment activities of a number of Member States, thereby adversely
affecting the economic interests of the Libyan people and others dependent on these trade and economic ties. Moreover, we have to ensure that the measures will mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya. Clarity in the resolution on any spillover effects of these measures would have been very important.
We abstained in the voting on the resolution in view of the aforementioned. I would like to reemphasize that India continues to be gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya and calls on the Libyan authorities to cease fire, protect the civilian population and address the legitimate demands of the Libyan people.
Professor Mani’s analysis on humanitarian intervention clearly lays
out the problems that come with it and if one were to borrow the
analysis from the Report prepared by the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the operation principles of
R2P reveal the gamut of problems facing HI.
Operational principles
A. Clear objectives: clear and unambiguous mandate at all times, and resources
to match.
B. Common military approach among involved partners; unity of command;
clear and unequivocal communications and chain of command.
C. Acceptance of limitations, incrementalism and gradualism in the application
of force, the objective being protection of a population, not defeat or a state.
D. Rules of engagement, which fit the operational concept: are precise; reflect
the principle of proportionality; and involve total adherence to international
humanitarian law.
E. Acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal objective.
F. Maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organisations.59
If we focus on the Libya case, the United Nations Security Council
passed Resolution 1973 which led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone
and naval blockage in the name of protecting civilians. In hindsight we
see the full gamut of problems identified in the R2P Report of 2005.60
On the day of the authorization of UNSC 1973 one would have been
very sympathetic in light of threats issued by the then Libyan leader
Col. Gaddafi to attack the city of Benghazi,61 but the intense scrutiny of Libya by the UNSC while ignoring similar events in Syria or Yemen
reveal the problems of selectivity of HI.
Footnote 60: If we look at the transcript of the 6498th Meeting of the UNSC held on 17 March 2011 and led to the adoption of UNSCR 1973, the remarks of the Indian Representative reveal the misgivings about the planned HI.
Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri (India): India has been following with serious concern the developments in
Libya, which have led to the loss of numerous lives and injuries to many more. We are very concerned about the welfare of the civilian population and of foreigners in Libya. We deplore the use of force, which is totally unacceptable and must not be resorted to.
The Secretary-General has appointed a Special Envoy, who has just visited Libya. We support his
appointment and his mission. However, we have not had the benefit of his report or even a report from the Secretariat on his assessment as yet. That would have given us an objective analysis of the situation on the ground. The African Union is also sending a high-level panel to Libya to make serious efforts for a peaceful end to the crisis there. We must stress the importance of political efforts, including those of the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy, to address the situation. The Council has today adopted a resolution that authorizes far-reaching measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya. We also do not have clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who will participate and with what assets, and how these measures will exactly be carried out. It is of course very important that there be full respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya.
The financial measures that are proposed in the resolution could impact directly or through indirect
routes the ongoing trade and investment activities of a number of Member States, thereby adversely
affecting the economic interests of the Libyan people and others dependent on these trade and economic ties. Moreover, we have to ensure that the measures will mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya. Clarity in the resolution on any spillover effects of these measures would have been very important.
We abstained in the voting on the resolution in view of the aforementioned. I would like to reemphasize that India continues to be gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya and calls on the Libyan authorities to cease fire, protect the civilian population and address the legitimate demands of the Libyan people.
No comments:
Post a Comment