Responsibility to Protect and the International Military Intervention in Libya in International Law: What Went Wrong and What Lessons Could Be Learnt from It?

The need to respond to the unfolding situation of mass atrocity crimes has become the subject of a longstanding discussion in international law, with no success in reaching an agreement on the legal status of such a right to respond. The use of coercive measures to protect endangered people remains one of the most challenging aspects of contemporary international law. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was introduced to respond to the grave cases of massacres, but this notion has remained more in the realm of political rhetoric rather than in international law. However, the notion of R2P was invoked by the states leading international intervention in Libya. This article aims to present a critique of the application and interpretation of R2P as a normative framework, with a focus on the complementary responsibility of the international community in the face of the humanitarian crisis in Libya and the way military intervention was carried out. Drawing on the lessons learnt from the international intervention in Libya, this article provides an assessment of the UN resolutions that authorised the military intervention in Libya and the conduct of the coalition partners prior to, during and in the aftermath of the intervention and suggests the manner in which this normative framework could be developed to help the international community to shoulder its responsibility for the protection of people, without undermining the core of international legal framework in the future