Can the coalition ‘target’ Gaddafi? That was the debate raging on Twitter when I logged on first thing this morning.
William Hague and Liam Fox left the door open to the possibility, but Gen Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, was quick to dismiss the notion. So who’s right?
They both are. Welcome to international law!
I admit, I’m a bit of an international law geek. So much so that I did a masters degree in it. And yet, despite my interest in the subject, I still find it hard to think of international law as a legal order in any traditional sense.
Don’t panic, I’m not suggesting international law is something which can be ignored. Rather, I make the case that our reasons for complying with international law or seeking the ‘authorisation’ of international law rarely come down to any reverence to its nature as ‘law’ as such. Just take Libya. Did the government really feel they absolutely couldn’t take action without a Security Council resolution granting ‘legal’ authority? Or were they acutely aware that in the post-Iraq environment a Security Council resolution provides an appropriate level of political authority domestically?
And then there’s the enforcement mechanism? Oh wait, there isn’t one! Failure to comply with the parameters of resolution 1973 or, had 1973 failed to pass, a decision to install a no-fly zone over Libya regardless of UN wishes would be met with what from the UN? Shrill voices? Probably, but little else.
No, as above, the government (and you can insert US/French/etc government in there too) recognised that the only real comeback from failure to adhere to ‘international law’, in the sense in which I’m discussing it here, is political fall-out at home. And that’s enough to motivate almost any politician to compliance with a legal system without an enforcement mechanism and which few understand.
And returning to the question which started this post, can the coalition target Gaddafi? Of course they can. Just take the destruction of one of Gaddafi’s command centres. Are we honestly to believe that Gaddafi’s presence in the building would have rendered it any less of a target? ‘Yes, we were going to blow up the command centre, but when we realised the tyrant who’s attacking his own people was it we decided to hold fire’. Please. To say we won’t target him is to ignore the fact that ‘targeting’ someone can mean more than just actively seeking them out.
And, in any event, even if the coalition were to target Gaddafi what’s the international legal system going to do about it? Haul the government before a court? No. But the public might: the court of public opinion. And that’s enough to make any politician think twice.
Comments
IanVisits / March 21 2011 2:04pm
In a purely legal sense, Colonel Gaddafi is not the Head of State anyway - even though he behaves like one.
His formal job title is Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan armed forces.
Officially, the Head of State is Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai, Secretary-General of the General People's Congress.
Therefore, I would presume that targeting the head of the armed forces in a military action would be permissible where it is justified in taking out a military command structure.
That the political repercussions would be considerable though is itself a reason to reconsider the issue.
Carl Gardner / March 21 2011 2:09pm
Incidentally killing Gaddafi if he happens to be present at a legitimate target isn't the same as targeting him, though, is it? The question isn't about whether it's lawful to kill him, but whether it's lawful to target him specifically.
It seems to me the question must be whether it's necessary to kill him in order to fulfil the UN mandate, i.e. to protect civilians. If it really is necessary ... well, the UNSCR has authorised "all necessary means" to protect them. I think everyone would agree that includes shooting down Libyan pilots if need be, and equally, if Gaddafi had to be killed in order to protect civilians, then I don't see what in UNSCR excludes that.
There seem to me two reasons why this is all probably unrealistic, though. First, I'm not sure how you could really argue that targeting him was necessary to protect civilians. If you remove his capability and successfully neutralise his forces, that should be enough.
Secondly, and as you say more importantly, there's the politics. If Gaddafi were killed, I reckon the outcry would be so deafening (I'm not saying it'd be justified) that the coalition will want to avoid it at almost all costs. I think if he is killed, it'd almost certainly be by accident.
chris / March 21 2011 2:52pm
So what was all the fuss about then when the US/UK went it alone over Iraq. If this is the reality of international law, then the whole of the international judicial system is flawed and needs to be looked at?????
Disorganised1 / March 28 2011 1:09am
Personalising a campaign is an error - do we stop when Gaddafi si killed ? The campaign - if we have to have one - is about restoring order, not removal of an individual.