The responsibility to protect in the anarchical society: power, interest, and the protection of civilians in Libya and Syria.

• Author: Eckert, Amy E.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's ("NATO") 2011 intervention in Libya is widely regarded as a successful example of the international community fulfilling its responsibility to protect civilians against abuses perpetrated by their own state. The responsibility to protect addresses certain shortcomings in the concept of humanitarian intervention--the use of military force to address humanitarian crises. The use of force to address grave violations of human rights may often be too little, too late. By contrast, the responsibility to protect is a continuum of actions (including, but not limited to, the use of force), which is intended to address crises earlier and through a variety of different tools. The NATO intervention, authorized by the United Nations ("U.N.") Security Council, responded to the Libyan government's attacks against civilian rebels inspired to revolt by the events of the Arab Spring. Yet in other instances in which governments responded brutally to pro-democracy protestors--notably Syria--the role of the international community has been significantly less visible than in Libya. While governments in both Libya and Syria responded with force to unarmed civilian protestors, and are suspected of crimes against humanity, only the former was the target of intervention by the international community, an action that ultimately led to the demise of the regime.

The contrast between these two cases bears out the fact that the responsibility to protect is subject to many of the same pitfalls as humanitarian intervention. Critics of humanitarian intervention correctly pointed to selectivity in its application as problematic. States intervened in instances where they had an interest--humanitarian or otherwise--in intervening and the power to do so. The selectivity that seems to plague action under the frameworks of both humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect stems from the nature of the international system, and the lack of a realistic alternative to state action in support of either principle. While the responsibility to protect has advanced the debate about support for human rights in some key respects, it is nevertheless subject to some of the same pitfalls as humanitarian intervention with respect to implementation.

This article begins with a brief overview of the two cases under consideration, Libya and Syria. It then surveys the evolution of the debate about the international community's role in responding to human rights violations, with an emphasis on the emergence of the responsibility to protect. Finally, it takes up the dynamics of the international system that frustrate a consistent application of the responsibility to protect, perpetuating the inconsistency that subjected the right of humanitarian intervention to criticism.

1. THE ARAB SPRING

   On December 17, 2010, Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after the government confiscated his goods. Bouazizi's death brought to the forefront rage against the Tunisian government, which was widely viewed as oppressive and corrupt. (1) A coalition of intellectuals, human rights activists, and labor movements successfully toppled the government within a month of Bouazizi's self-immolation. The anti-government sentiment was not limited to Tunisia, and soon spread elsewhere throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya and Syria.

   1. The Libyan Uprising

      The Libyan regime of Muammar Khadafy did not escape the groundswell of rebellion. On February 17, 2011, Libyans who were discontent with Khadafy's rule held a "day of rage" protest in response to the government's human rights abuses, which Amnesty International describes as having been a "hallmark" of the regime. (2) Protests continued in the city of Benghazi and quickly spread elsewhere throughout Libya, and they were met with brutal repression. In Benghazi, security forces killed at least 109 protestors, some of whom had been protesting peacefully. (3) Protests, and the ensuing brutal government crackdowns, spread throughout Libya, eventually reaching Tripoli. On February 22, after nearly a week of protests, Khadafy criticized the protests for threatening Libya's interests and pledged to "purge Libya inch by inch, room by room, household by household, alley by alley, and individual by individual until the country is purified." (4) In support of that pledge, government forces resorted to brutally repressive tactics against the opposition.

      By late February, anti-government rebels controlled much of Libya, though government forces would eventually retake much of the territory that the rebels had gained. The brutality of the Libyan government's response, particularly its strategy of targeting civilians, led the international community to intervene on behalf of the rebel movement. In Resolution 1970, the U.N. Security Council referred the Libyan situation to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. (5) In addition, the Security Council imposed a weapons embargo and implemented a travel ban and asset freeze for key individuals affiliated with the Khadafy regime and suspected of violence against the protestors. (6)

      The following month, the Security Council adopted a second resolution on Libya, Resolution 1973. (7) This resolution authorized U.N. Member States to use "all necessary measures," including the use of force, to ensure protection of civilians in Libya. (8) The forcible intervention authorized by Resolution 1973 would be carried out by NATO, which began striking Libya's air defenses two days later. (9) NATO's intervention neutralized the government's advantage and paved the way for a military triumph by the rebel movement in August, when they seized control of Tripoli.

   2. Rebellion in Syria

      The Syrian government has also been beset by protests, and, like Libya, has responded with brutal and repressive acts against civilians. Anti-government protests began in Syria in March 2011, when a group of approximately 200 protestors called for the ouster of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. (10) As in Libya, the government has responded harshly to the anti-government protests, not hesitating to open fire on civilian protestors. Estimates of the number killed vary widely, but even conservative estimates place the number of dead in the thousands. (11) In the words of Human Rights Watch, "the notorious security services, referred to generically as mukhabarat, and pro-government armed groups, whom Syrians refer to as shabeeha, regularly used force, often lethal force, against largely peaceful demonstrators, and often prevented injured protesters from receiving medical assistance." (12) According to witnesses, the security forces utilize lethal force against protestors even when they are not threatened by the protestors. (13)

      Unlike Libya, the U.N. Security Council did not adopt a resolution on Syria because proposed action was blocked by Russia and China. (14) The failure of the U.N. to respond has, apparently, only emboldened the al-Assad regime in its brutal crackdown on protestors. (15) Although the Security Council has not adopted a resolution addressing the uprising in Syria, it did issue a presidential statement expressing concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria and urging the government to negotiate a ceasefire. (16) The statement also had the support of Russia and Syria, the two states that had vetoed previous Security Council efforts to act on the Syrian crisis. To secure that support, the presidential statement was devoid of threats or demands. (17) Undeniably, the response of the international community to the violence in Syria has been tepid when compared with the response to similar crimes in Libya.

2. FROM HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION TO THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

   The responsibility to protect grows out of a longstanding right of humanitarian intervention. While state sovereignty has long included the right of states to exercise broad discretion with respect to the treatment of their nationals, this discretion has never been...