On 26 February 2011 the Security Council of the United Nations adopted unanimously a resolution important about the situation in Libya .
be observed that the Board determines at the outset a legal targeting "serious violations of human rights" but also "international humanitarian law". This double dimension is not trivial as to identify the nature of a conflict in which, firstly, reached the level of violence seems to exceed what is generally observable in the internal strife and, on the other hand, some areas of the country seem to be beyond the control of official power. The unusual nature of the situation regarding legal definitions and political standard is no doubt that the expression "armed conflict" is not (yet) used, but the phraseology used in the resolution tends in that direction.
As to the facts, are affected, in addition to the plight of refugees and the shortage of medical supplies, "the systematic attacks and widespread that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya commit against the civilian population could constitute crimes against humanity .
From there, the resolution envisages the one hand, the international policy response and operational and, secondly, the judicial process that engages.
The policy response and operational
1. addition to the insistence facilitate humanitarian action International, also the exhortation addressed to the Libyan authorities to show restraint and the creation of an international commission of inquiry, the Council decides
- an embargo "in & out" on weapons,
- a travel ban for a number of Libyan officials today (Annex I of the resolution)
- a freeze on assets of different people (Annex II resolution)
These embargoes, bans travel and freezing assets are legally binding on all UN Member States under Articles 25 and 41 of the Charter.
2. While identifying the legal basis for foreign mining operations is often presented as based on custom, paragraph 3 of resolution 1970 clearly calls on "all states members, to the extent possible, (to) cooperate in the evacuation of foreigners wishing to leave the country. " Certainly, this text does not overtly reference to the hypothesis of an extraction of a military nature, but it does not exclude formally.
3. More broadly, the proposed measures are based on Article 41 of the Charter. It is therefore measures that do not - at this stage - the use of armed force. If things were to deteriorate further, this could be considered by the Council. The Secretary General has suggested, stating that "the actions taken today are severe and, in the days to come, if things do not change, even bolder steps may be taken. " It should be noted that the Russian representative to the Council stated that "it was not necessary to take other measures than those which have been decided by the Council because they would be counterproductive, he said, to stop the violence in this country " (1) .
judicial process
The resolution of February 26, 2011 recalls the basic principle of "Responsibility to protect" the right thing for the Libyan authorities (2) , but also the personal responsibility of the authors or leaders of the perpetrators of attacks against civilians .
It goes much further by entering the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court "of the situation with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is the theater since February 15, 2011. It is interesting to note the significance of this decision: it is taken with the agreement of three members Permanent Council (benefiting from the right of veto under Article 27.3 of the Charter) which are not parties to the Statute of the Court (3) and relates to acts committed in a State which is not a party either.
Semantics is important because if the Council urges "to other states and international organizations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor, it decides that the Libyan authorities" must cooperate fully "with the same judicial authorities.
Certainly, we are not here in the same decision context than that which prevailed during the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (4) or Rwanda (5) , but notes that the Council took a step in the nomination of a non-conventional criminal court with universal scope. Without doubt it is too early to assess fully the scope and impact of resolution 1970 on this point, but the fact remains that the approach initiated can not fail to retain the interest now.
[2] . See the references that we mentioned it recently on the subject .
[3] . On States Parties, see this link .
[4] . See Resolution 808 22 February 1993.
0 comments:
Post a Comment