Colonel Gaddafi has been killed in Libya after 42 years of a brutal dictatorship. The Libyan people will be celebrating tonight but if, as appears likely, he was killed after suffering wounds from a Nato aircraft it raises questions about the legality of the bombing campaign in Libya.
When the war began way back in March much of the debate was whether the UN Resolution 1973, which authorised in paragraphs four and eight, "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya, covered attacks on Gaddafi and senior figures in the regime. In late March the now-former British defence minister Liam Fox claimed that Gaddafi was a "legitimate target" for assassination within the remit of 1973.
Within days Nato stressed that was not their position and David Cameron was quick to say he disagreed with Fox. The Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards went even further: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further."
Yet as the war has continued it has become increasingly clear that Nato has accepted Fox's interpretation of 1973, despite publicly claiming the opposite. First there were attacks on his command and control centres in Tripoli that aimed, according to Fox, to increase "psychological pressure" of the Gaddafi family. Then there were attacks on his family home, which allegedly killed his youngest son Saif al-Arab Gaddafi and children. Since the fall of Tripoli the realistic threat to civilians has fallen significantly and while the pursuit of Gaddafi by the Libyans is legitimate, the continued use of Nato air force hints at regime change.
If Nato stepped over the line between protecting civilians and assassination attempts it is unclear exactly when this happened. International law lags behind real politik, particularly in the regulation of unmanned surveillance drones, which have been used in Libya. International law regulating assassination often ends up falling back on the Hague Convention of 1899 which confirms that it is illegal "to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."
But, as Kristen Eichensehr has argued, "in recent years, and especially since September 11... the United States [and others] have reframed [assassinations]as "targeted killings," defining the victims as "enemy combatants" who are therefore legitimate targets wherever they are found."
Over the course of the war Nato has gradually redefined its goals, to the extent that David Cameron is hailing the murder of a man as a victory for democracy. The lines between liberal interventionism and regime change have blurred so fast it is difficult to know whether they have strayed beyond the lines of Resolution 1973.
Policy-makers will rejoice that Gaddafi is dead as it vindicates the theory of quick and easy liberal wars. Yet if he has been killed by bombs flown by Nato airplanes it finally removes the illusion that this is a Libyan revolution. Even if he wasn't it is fairly clear that Nato reconnaissance led the Libyan rebels to him. The purpose of going to war was to protect the population of Libya. Was the killing of a deposed leader legitimate within that framework? When David Richards said "absolutely not", perhaps what he really meant was "quite possibly".
Follow Joe Dyke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joedyke
Maurice Chammah: What Shalit and Gaddafi Have in Common
Moamar was neither the evilest nor the cruelest, Libyan people under his leadership were neither the most repressed nor the poorest. Himself “the corrupted leader” preferred to have such a tragic end than fleeing to some exotic paradise to leave comfortably for the rest of his life. Despite that he is often painted like a hated figure, NTC officials consider to give his body a secret burial under fears that his grave could turned to a shrine.
After 8 months of fierce fighting the rebels backed by NATO bombs managed to win the war. This whole period nobody saw or hear almost any of Gaddafi’s loyalists – as they were coined to downplay their attributes as human beings and Libyan citizens – , the invisible army that preferred to die with him allegedly after some good payment. By contrast, Gaddafi’s body became a public domain picture to entertain the eyes of the viewers in Libya and around the globe, as a trophy of victory.
Of coarse, victory like death is considered as a fait accompli. Most people when the curtain falls, rush to applause the winners. But I suspect that the real “play” in Libya has just started albeit it will be difficult to watch as the lights of the media will turn to other directions having served their purposes there and the public interest will be diminished …
Prime Minister, David Cameron
Who cares?!
Wars are never legal or illegal. They are usuallyprosecuted out of expediency; percieved self-interest and are mostly conflicts of economics and who weilds the power. All else, to put it mildly, is just so much airy-fairy hogwash. History will decide who was right. And since nearly all history is probably written by the victors, I suggest trying to work out whether what Nato did was legal or not is really a tad bloody academic.
Dobbie the house-elf becomes a nation.
UK releases Lockerbie bomber then apologizes, shoots hundreds of innocent Indian civilians and then apologizes for the Amritsar massacre, shoots Irish civilians and then apologizes for the Bloody Sunday deaths, apologizes for using Mosques on firing ranges, for the child migration program, for creating the Palestinian state, etc etc etc.
Then your sailors patrol off the Iranian coast to give a show of force but are captured by the Iranians in international waters, so they cringe and apologize on international TV to the Iranians for being kidnapped in the first place !!
Now you bomb Libya, and then feel bad about killing Ghaddafi.
If you want more evidence there is lots of it, you've lost your backbone.
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_10/20111021_111021-oup-update.pdf
The gist of it is:
1) An armed, speeding convoy attempting to evade military check points around a besieged city is a legitimate target.
2) NATO had no knowledge Kadhafi was in the convoy and the multiple strikes were not an attempt to assassinate him.
NATO's account is plausible (did NATO even know Kadhafi was still in Libya, let alone in Sirte?), but what NATO actually knew, or suspected cannot be independently verified. NATO's legal defense seems robust enough to survive weak international standards.
Bring us your evidence. It's customary and the "legal" responsibility affer all of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Defendant - Not the other way round. You don't know that Nato are lying. You probably just want to believe they are, for whatever reason.
Personally I couldn't give a toss whether they are over this issue.
Loading comments…