On 19th March 2011, a multi- state NATO coalition started a military intervention against Libya. This paper tries to examines the legitimateness of the use of force in Libya under international law as approved by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 1973.

1. 1
Abstract
On 19th March 2011, a multi- state NATO coalition started a military intervention against a Muslim
state (Libya). This paper tries to examines the legitimateness of the use of force in Libya under
international law as approved by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 1973. It
likewise to investigate whether international law permits a state to use military force to compel
another state. The paper will also analyze the purpose of UN and the resolution 1973 and how
those bodies have been violated in the Libya case.
Introductions
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 has authorized Member States (NATO), to
take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the Libya. The Resolution
was in response to allegations of killings and mistreatment of civilians in parts of Libya by the
country’s government following anti-government protests. In Resolution 1970 which preceded
Resolution 1973, the Security Council had expressed grave concerns about the violence in the
nation and the utilization of force against the civilians in Libya.
It likewise deplored the gross and systematic infringment of human rights including the repression
of tranquil demonstrators, expressing deep worry at the demise of civilians, and dismissing
unequivocally the incitement to hostility and viciousness against the non-military population made
from the highest level of Libyan government.
Creation and Purpose of the United Nations
For us to really understand if the intervention in Libya was legit or not, we need to first look at the
purpose of the United Nations. United Nations is the successor of the old League of Nations which
commanded the affairs of nations between the times of 1919 to the advent of second World War.
Following the disappointment of the League of Nations to prevent the World War II, the United
Nations was established in 1945 to stop wars between country states and to be a center for
international exchange. Subsequently, toward the end of the second World War, 51 countries
envious to prevent and moderate the re-occurrence of another world war, convened in San
Francisco under the protection of the United Nations Conference on International Organization.
Their main goal as expressed in the preamble of United Nations Charter incorporated the need “To

2. 2
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime which has
brought untold sorrow to mankind”.
The purpose of this organization as given in Article 1 of the Charter is to keep international peace
and security; to develop friendly relations among country in light of equivalentrights and self-
determination; and to accomplish universal co-operation in solving economic, social, cultural and
humanitarian problems. One of the extraordinary rule which thus underlines the basis of the
development of the United nations is the provision of Article 2(4) which ordered all members to
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
respectability or political autonomy of any state.
Resolution 1973: UNSC Powers and Procedures.
The United Nations Security Council is one of the primary organs of the United Nations. It is
endowed under Chapter VII with the ability to direct and enforce international peace and security.
Chapter VII of the Charter constitutes the heart of the general collective security framework. Its
provision empowers the United Nations Security Council, subsequently to having determined that
a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression has happened, may if vital take
military enforcement activities involving the use of forces by the Member States. Thus the Security
Council is endowed with a wide circumspection in the application of Chapter VII measures.
Nonetheless, the international Court of Justice (ICJ) observed that “this does not imply that the
Security Council can act free of all legal control.
The Resolution 1973 was apparently designed to protect civilians through the imposition of No-
Fly Zone and other essential measures, yet NATO have re-defined the mission to incorperate
regime change and the provision of air-support, military facilities and advisers to the rebel fighters.
Successfully, the United Nations has unwittingly taken side in what appears to be a civil war and
actively fighting with the rebel forces. Although this is a contravention of Resolution 1973 and the
United Nations Charter, the UN and the Security Council seems to be weak to stop the NATO.
Accordingly, under Article 39, “the Security Council shall determine the presence of any threat to
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or choose what
measures should be taken as per Article 41 and 42 of the Charter, to maintain or restore
international peace and security. This implies that the United Nations Security Council is required

3. 3
to first consider peaceful measures under Article 41 before resorting to enforcement measures
under Article 42 of the Charter. But Article 41 was not considered in the case of Libya. The Council
went forward to enforce the use of force against Libya.
Violations of the primary purposes of the United Nations:
The main purpose of the United Nations is clearly expressed in the introduction of the charter. It
includes also those stipulated in article 2(3) and 2(4) which requires all Members to settle their
international disputes by peaceful means and that all Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state respectively.
Apparently, Resolution 1973 approves use of force in Libya without attempting to convince the
parties in conflict to settle their dispute peacefully. The authorization of military force by the
Security Council (for the maintenance of international peace and security) ought to have been the
last option rather first alternative. The security Council is required to investigate any dispute or
circumstance to confirm if its continuation is likely to jeopardize the maintenance of international
peace and security. The council is also expected to implement measures other than military force
e.g. Economic and Military sanctions. But the Security council did not consider all this, instead
resort in use of force which is obviously a violation of the primary purpose and principle of the
United Nations.
Violations in United Nations Security Council Voting Procedures:
When adopting enforcement measures under Chapter VII, the Charter system requires that specific
criteria to be met in order for the authorization to use force to be legitimate, if not, the UNSC and
the states taking such measures acts in violations of the Charter and therefore international law.
These incorporates that the security council under its procedures must have adopted the resolution
in accordance with Charter provisions especially as it concerns its voting procedure under Article
27(3) which gives that decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by
affirmative vote of 9 Members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.
This implies that at least a majority of nine members must cast an affirmative vote to adopt a
resolution and these must include the concurring votes of five permanent members. In resolution
1973 that embraced the use of force against Libya, 10 members voted in favor of non against and

4. 4
five abstained showing a division in a no agreement within the council. Among the five abstaining
members were two permanent members to be specific; China and Russia. Instructively, just three
of the five permanent members agreed with the resolution. The resolution did not comply with
Charter provisions. Nevertheless, UN practice has demonstrated that when a permanent member
abstains, a resolution may still be passed and that was the situation in the adoption of the resolution
1973. The implication is that contrary to the requirement of an agreeing vote of the five permanent
members the resolution was passed subsequently violating the Charter provision.
The Members of the Security Council who voted in favor of the resolution were obvious that
resolution was based on humanitarian considerations. They were persuaded that the motivation
behind the new resolution was basically humanitarian and was helpful for bringing about
conditions that would prompt to the security of civilians under assault from Gadafi’s
administration.
The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of state:
The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states is a customary international law
principle based upon the idea of respect for territorial sovereignty of states. These twin principles
guarantee the independence of Member States, and goes to reaffirm the assertion as noted by
Malcolm N. Shaw that the UN is based upon the sovereign equality of states and the principles of
satisfaction in good faith of the obligations contained in the Charter, including the peaceful
settlement of disputes and the disallowance of the use of force.
Therefore, under Article 2(7) of the Charter, the United Nations, its members and surly any of its
organs shall not intervene in matters which are basically within the jurisdiction of the state except
where enforcement measure are applied under Chapter VII of the Charter by the United Nations
Security Council.
In this specific situation, the Libya conflict was absolutely an internal conflict which demonstrated
no potential cross border. Libya as a member of the United Nations, needed the support and
solidarity of the international community in the face of internal strife against it, yet the United
Nations Security Council did not just violate the sovereignty of Libya but went further by allowing
the NATO taking part in conflict of another state. Evidently, by giving military support to the
radicals. Nothing in international law prohibits the use of military or superior weapons to fight

5. 5
rebels in a civil war, there were no breaches of international humanitarian law of armed conflict
for president Gadafi and his forces to target and execute rebels. Rebels are normally not percieved
belligerents. In addition, according to Malcolm. N. Shaw “Aid to rebels is contrary to international
law”. The Declaration on principle or rule of international law accentuated that: “No state shall
organize, assist, instigate, finance, incite or tolerate subversive terrorist or armed activities directed
towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another state, or interfere in civil strife”. Besides,
“Every state shall cease from any activity aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national
solidarity and territorial integrity of any other country”.
Recommendations
 The International Community should move beyond violence and warfare as a method of
implementing compliance with international standards. We can’t have the privileges to life
as a core human rights and at the same time seek an approach that disregards those rights.
Conclusion
Since the situation in Libya does not include aggression and is not a threat or a breach of
international peace and security, it falls outside the parameters of Security council power. There is
literally nothing Humanitarian in shelling and executing human lives in order to prevent or stop
human rights infringement. The use of force in a way that is opposition to existing international
law is perhaps the greatest harm to mankind in the long-haul. In the Pact of Paris in 1928 and again
in the UN Charter in 1945, states agreed not to use force against each other to achieve their foreign
policy ends. The Western world has appeared to over again challenge this agreement.
Lastly, the use of force in Libya as approved by the United Nations Security council through
Resolution 1973 was unlawful under international law as encapsulated in the Charter of the United
Nations in so far as the UNSC in adopting the Resolution neglected to comply with its voting
necessities in addition to the obligation to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of
the United Nations. In this manner, it disregarded the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya,
abuse its own particular voting requirement and above all, repudiated the reason and princple of
the United Nations.

6. 6
REFERENCE
Charter of the United Nations; In force since October 24, 1945
Malcolm N. Shaw, (2008). International Law (6th Edition ed.). Cambridge: University Press
Mclaughin L. Why we shouldn’t intervene in Libya Newstatesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/03/resolution-china-ger-many accessed
14/10/2016
UN Security council – Profile, BBC News World <http//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11712448>
accessed 14/10/2016
“The Libya humanitarian intervention: Is it lawful international law?”.
https://www.academia.edu/706296/ (Web) accessed 15/10/2016.
Simma B, NATO, ‘The UN and use of force; Legal aspects’
Taulbee, James Larry. “Governing The Use Of Force: Does The UN Charter Matter Anymore?”.
Civil Wars 4.2 (2001): 1-58. Web.