The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

BACKGROUNDER: How is the ‘International Humanitarian Rule of Law’ being applied by the military attack on Libya?


22 March 2011

‘Open Letter’ to all New Zealand MPs, NZ Councils, media, and concerned citizens:

FYI:

Following is a copy of the ‘Open Letter’ OIA request to NZ Prime Minister John Key re: NZ support for air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, emailed on 21 March 2011.

The following is my considered opinion, as someone who has a proven track record in defending human and democratic rights:

_________________________________________________________

If you don’t know your rights – you don’t have any.

The same principle applies to the International Humanitarian ‘Rule of Law’. (See the ‘Principles of Nuremberg’ (*3) and Geneva Conventions (*4) included at the end of this post).

How do you enforce a ‘ceasefire’ with bombs and missiles?

How is it ‘lawful’ for  fighter planes to drop  bombs in a ‘no fly’ zone?

How do you ‘protect’ civilians with bombs and missile attacks?

Which part of  the UN Security Council resolution 1973,  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm ( *1 ) – copied in full at the end of this post so people can read it for themselves) – endorses the following:

‘A US-led coalition launched cruise missile and air strikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences from early Sunday (NZ Time) through to Monday night in what is called Operation “Odyssey Dawn”. The coalition includes forces from the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Qatar, UAE’ ?

How is the ‘US-led coaltion cruise missile and air strikes attack’, compliant with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations:

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION”

.http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml (*2) copied in full at the end of this post)

Are any of the above-mentioned nations; US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Qatar, UAE’ – under attack from Libya?

Have the Governments of the following nations; USA, UK, France,Canada,Italy, Spain, Denmark, Qatar, UAE, debated in their Parliaments or Congresses, and got political endorsement for the ‘US-led coalition cruise missile and air strikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences’?

The USA – ‘leader’ of this above-mentioned ‘coalition’ –  hasn’t.

http://www.truth-out.org/congress-must-debate-libya-war68643

Congress Must Debate the Libya War

Monday 21 March 2011

by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis


The US Navy destroyer Barry in the Mediterranean fired Tomahawk missiles toward Libya on Saturday, March 19, 2011. (Photo: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Sunderman / United States Navy via the New York Times)

The US is now at war in a third Muslim country, according to the “official tally” (that is, counting Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, but not Pakistan or Yemen, for example.) But Congress has never authorized or debated the US military intervention in Libya. (A sharply disputed claim holds that the Pakistan and Yemen actions are covered by the 2001 authorization of military force, but no one has dared to argue that the 2001 authorization to use military force covers Libya.)

Some will no doubt claim that the president is acting in Libya within his authority as commander in chief. But this is an extremely dangerous claim.

To put it crudely: as a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without Congressional authorization, then President Palin can bomb Iran without Congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke Congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.

………………………………..”

What is being applied in Libya?

The International Humanitarian ‘Rule of Law’ (as outlined in the Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Convention) or international ‘law of the jungle’?

How are the stated principles of the Charter of the United Nations, regarding “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION”   being upheld and applied?

Whose interests are really being served here, and for what purpose?

Like Iraq – is the real reason behind this military attack on Libya – who will control the oil?

Penny Bright

VERY concerned citizen.

“Anti-corruption campaigner”.

Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2010.

Independent Candidate Botany by-election 2011.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21 March 2011

‘Open Letter’ OIA request to NZ Prime Minister John Key re: NZ support for air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya:

Dear Prime Minister,

Your are reported on 20 March 2011, as having stated that  New Zealand supports the air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime:

Q&A: Interview with John Key

Sunday, 20 March 2011, 2:48 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government

GUYON Could we start with Libya? Does New Zealand support the air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime?

JOHN New Zealand does. It supports the UN Security Council resolution demanding the reduction and elimination of violence by the Libyan government against the people of Libya and also the no-fly zone across Libya, because, of course, Gaddafi is using his air space to attack his own people. “

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1103/S00187/qa-interview-with-john-key.htm


1) Please provide the information which confirms the precise section of the following  UN Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya,  which supports air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya?

UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

“Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions.

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.
……………………”

2) Please provide the information which confirms upon which sections of UN International Humanitarian Law,  New Zealand is relying, which support, in this situation, air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya?

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright

“Anti-corruption campaigner”.

Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2010.

Independent Candidate Botany by-election 2011.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*1)     http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

FULL TEXT OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973

17 March 2011
Security Council
SC/10200

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council

6498th Meeting (Night)


Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary


Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions


Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.


Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.


Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.


The Council stressed the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis that responded to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people, noting actions being taken on the diplomatic front in that regard.  It further demanded that Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.


In that connection, the Council specified that the flight ban would not apply to flights that had as their sole purpose humanitarian aid, the evacuation of foreign nationals, enforcing the ban or other purposes “deemed necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people”.


It further decided that all States should deny permission to any Libyan commercial aircraft to land in or take off from their territory unless a particular flight had been approved in advance by the committee that was established to monitor sanctions imposed by resolution 1970 (2011).


In tightening the asset freeze and arms embargo established by that resolution, the Council this evening further detailed conditions for inspections of transport suspected to be violating the embargo, requesting States enforcing the embargo to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they were taking towards implementation.


It requested the Secretary-Secretary to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.


Introducing the resolution, the Foreign Minister of France, Alain Juppé, said “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released”.  The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”.  The world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, but the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”.  Earlier Council measures had been ignored and violence against Libyan civilians had redoubled.


He said that the urgent need to protect the civilian population had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime.  “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders.


Speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country.  They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm.


Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces.  The representative of the United Kingdom pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.


The representative of the United States said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help.  The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.  The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.


The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be.  He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier.  China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.


The delegations of India, Germany and Brazil, having also abstained, equally stressed the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict and warned against unintended consequences of armed intervention.


Statements were also made made by the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria and South Africa.


The meeting was opened at 6:25 p.m. and closed at 7:20 p.m.


Action on Draft


Speaking before the vote, ALAIN JUPPÉ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said the world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, as people throughout North Africa and the Middle East were calling for “a breath of fresh air”, for freedom of expression and democracy.  Such calls for democratic transition had echoed through Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco.  Everyone had witnessed the events with great hope and he believed “this new Arab springtime is good news for all”.  The changes required the international community not to “give lessons”, but to help the people of those countries build a new future.


Yet, he said, while such transitions in other countries had not been met with extreme violence, the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”, as Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi mercilessly attacked his own people.  In light of those actions, the international community had responded swiftly; the General Assembly had suspended the country from the Human Rights Council, determining that the systematic and widespread attacks could constitute crimes against humanity.  In addition, the Security Council’s earlier resolution had called for an immediate end to the violence and had referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.


Unfortunately, those measures had not been enough and violence against Libyan civilians had been redoubled, he said.  Again, the international community had acted with unanimity, particularly through the League of Arab States’ call on the Security Council to enact a no-fly zone and the African Union’s strong call for an end to the violence.  “Yet, the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released,” he said, stressing that the Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”.


In light of that, France had been working assiduously with the United Kingdom, the United States and other members of the international community calling for means to protect the civilian population.  Those efforts had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime.  “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders.  The Security Council had acted to ensure that democracy prevailed.


The Council then adopted resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation).


NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon) said that Libya was suffering heavily, with hundreds of victims dying and thousands displaced.  Faced with those risks and the great danger of those crimes, the United Nations had acted earlier, but Colonel Qadhafi had not heeded those actions.  Lebanon, agreeing with the League of Arab States, had then called on the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians.  The Libyan authorities had lost all their legitimacy and the resolution was aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.


He stressed that the resolution would not have as a consequence occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory.  He hoped that the resolution would have a deterrent role and end the Libyan authorities’ use of force.  He reaffirmed full support for the county’s sovereignty, the need for full cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, pursuant to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and the necessity of a peaceful solution to the situation.  The resolution was fraught with hope for Libya and its people, he concluded.


MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom), agreeing that the Libyan regime had lost legitimacy, had violated the Council’s resolutions and was on the verge of assaulting Benghazi, said he had pressed for the early adoption of the current resolution.  He pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.  The resolution put the United Nations clearly behind the highest values of the Organization.


PETER WITTIG (Germany) said the Security Council’s intention was to stop the violence in Libya and send a message to Colonel Qadhafi and his associates “that their time is over [and] they must relinquish power immediately”.  While the Council acted on Libya, North Africa was undergoing major political changes, meriting the international community’s full support.  The aim should be to promote political transition in Libya, stop the violence and begin a true political process.  “The people of Libya who have so clearly expressed their aspirations for democracy should be supported,” he said, adding that the Interim National Council was an important interlocutor in that regard.


He said his country was particularly concerned by the plight of the Libyan people and believed it was crucial to tighten existing sanctions to “cut [the Libyan regime] off” from the funds that had propped it up for so long.  Decisions regarding the use of military force were always extremely difficult to take.  Indeed, in the implementation of the resolution just adopted, Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated.  Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region.  If the resolution failed, it would be wrong to assume that any military intervention would be quickly and efficiently carried out.  Germany had decided not to support the resolution and would not contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its implementation.  Germany had abstained from the vote.


SUSAN RICE (United States) said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help.  The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.  The Council had adopted an earlier resolution that had sent a strong message, but Colonel Qadhafi and those that still stood by him had continued to grossly and systematically violate the most fundamental rights of the Libyan people.  The Arab League had subsequently called on the Council to take more stringent measures, and the current resolution was an answer to that call, as well as a strong response to the situation in the ground.


She said the Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.  The text also tightened measures already approved under resolution 1970 (2011).  In addition, it established a panel of experts to monitor short- and long-term implementation of the sanctions.  She stressed that the future of Libya should be decided by the Libyan people.  The United States stood with the people of Libya in their struggle to exercise their fundamental rights.


MANJEEV SINGH PURI ( India), explaining his abstention, expressed great concern over the welfare of the population of Libya and supported the appointment of the Secretary-General’s Envoy.  The report of that Envoy and that of others had not yet been received.  As a consequence, today’s resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures.  There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted.  Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.


MARIA LUIZA RIBERIO VIOTTI (Brazil) said her delegation was deeply concerned about the situation in Libya and regretted that the “strong message” sent by resolution 1970 (2011) had note yet been heeded.  The Brazilian Government had earlier condemned the violence being carried out by Libyan authorities and had called on them to uphold and protect the right of free expression of the protesters and to seek a solution to the crisis through meaningful dialogue.  Her delegation’s vote today should in no way be interpreted as condoning the behaviour of the Libyan authorities or as disregard for the need to protect civilians and respect for their rights.


She said that while Brazil stood in solidarity with all movements in the region expressing their legitimate demands for better governance, and had taken into account the Arab League’s call for strong measures to stop the violence through a no-fly zone, it believed that the resolution contemplated measures that went beyond that call.  “We are not convinced that the use of force as provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will lead to the realization of our common objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians,” she said, adding that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting”.  No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict.  Protecting civilians, ensuring lasting settlement and addressing the legitimate demands of Libyan citizens demanded a political process.


IVAN BARBALIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) reiterated his delegation’s grave concern about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya.  The Libyan people desperately needed humanitarian assistance, and the unimpeded access of that relief was an absolute necessity.  He called on Libyan authorities to end their violence against the Libyan people and he believed the resolution was an answer to their legitimate call and to the call of regional organizations.


NÉSTOR OSORIO (Colombia) said his delegation was convinced that the purpose of the new resolution was essentially humanitarian and was conducive to bringing about conditions that would lead to the protection of civilians under attack from a regime that had lost all legitimacy.  The Council had acted because the Government, through its actions, had shown that it was not up to protecting and promoting the rights of its people.


Colombia deplored the fact that the measures under resolution 1970 (2011) had not been heeded. It was also concerned that the current text had not been adopted unanimously. Colombia believed that the best way to ratchet up the pressure on the Qadhafi regime was to impose a no-fly zone, as called for by the League of Arab States.  The grave situation on the ground made it clear that all conditions were present for the Council to enact further measures and tighten the sanctions approved under resolution 1970 (2011).


VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear.  Work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council practice, with many questions having remained unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be.  His country had not prevented the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire was the best way to stop the loss of life.  His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives.  Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilization in the region.


JOSÉ FILIPE MORAES CABRAL (Portugal) said his country had voted in favour of the text because the attacks against civilians had continued after the passage of the last Council resolution, and conditions were deteriorating.  He affirmed that today’s resolution addressed his country’s priorities, including protecting civilians, facilitation of unimpeded humanitarian aid, promotion of a national dialogue and guarantees for the territorial integrity and independence of Libya.  He supported all diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation.


U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said the resolution had been necessitated by the persistently grave and dire situation in Libya.  “The current State of affairs leaves an indelible imprint on the conscience and compels us to act,” she said, adding that her delegation’s persistent calls for peace were rooted in the need to ensure the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those most in need, many of whom were Nigerian nationals.  The League of Arab States and the African Union had spoken with one voice in condemnation of the situation in Libya.


She said that while her delegation had supported the current text, it also believed that foreign occupation was not an option to ensure peace.  Nigeria supported language in the current text that negated that possibility.  Nigeria was also encouraged by the fact that the political path to a solution was endorsed in the text.  “Today, we have sent an unequivocal message to the Libyan people that the dignity and safety of every man woman and child is paramount,” she said, adding that when the fate of innocent civilians was in question, the international community, undaunted, must be ready to respond.


BASO SANGQU (South Africa) said his delegation was deeply concerned by what was fast becoming a civil war in Libya.  He hoped it could be resolved in a peaceful manner, according to the will of the Libyan people.  Any solution must also preserve the solidarity and integrity of Libya and, as such, South Africa supported the dispatch by the African Union of a special mission to the country.  He encouraged that mission to work closely with the Secretary-General’s newly appointed Special Envoy on finding a peaceful solution.


He said that South Africa regretted that the Council’s previous resolution had not been heeded and believed that by adopting the current text, the Council had acted responsibly to answer the call of Libyan people.  It would also speed humanitarian assistance to those that needed it most.  He hoped the letter and spirit of the present resolution would be implemented in full.


Security Council President LI BAODONG (China), speaking in his national capacity, said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China.  However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means.  China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted.  His delegation had asked specific questions that failed to be answered and, therefore, it had serious difficulty with the resolution.  It had not blocked the passage of the resolution, however, because it attached great importance to the requests of the Arab League and the African Union.  At the same time, he supported the efforts of the Secretary-General’s Envoy to resolve the situation by peaceful means.


Resolution


The full text of resolution 1973 (2011) reads as follows:


The Security Council,


Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,


Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),


Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,


Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,


Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,


Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),


Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,


Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,


Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,


Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Taking note further of the Secretary-General’s call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,


Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,


Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,


Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,


Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,


Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,


Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


“1.   Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;


“2.   Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;


“3.   Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;


Protection of civilians


“4.   Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;


“5.   Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;


No-fly zone


“6.   Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;


“7.   Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;


“8.   Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,


“9.   Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;


“10.  Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;


“11.  Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;


“12.  Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;


Enforcement of the arms embargo


“13.  Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;


“14.  Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) (“the Committee”) immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;


“15.  Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;


“16.  Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;


Ban on flights


“17.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;


“18.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;


Asset freeze


“19.  Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;


“20.  Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;


“21.  Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;


Designations


“22.  Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);


“23.  Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;


Panel of Experts


“24.  Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:


(a)   Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;


(b)   Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;


(c)   Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;


(d)   Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;


“25.  Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;


“26.  Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;


“27.  Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;


“28.  Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011);


“29.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”


Libya: United Nations Security Council proposed designations


Number Name Justification Identifiers
Annex I: Travel Ban  
1 QUREN SALIH QUREN AL QADHAFI Libyan Ambassador to Chad. Has left Chad for Sabha. Involved directly in recruiting and coordinating mercenaries for the regime.
2 Colonel AMID HUSAIN AL KUNI Governor of Ghat (South Libya). Directly involved in recruiting mercenaries.
Annex II: Asset Freeze
1 Dorda, Abu Zayd Umar Position: Director, External Security Organisation  
2 Jabir, Major General Abu Bakr Yunis Position: Defence Minister Title: Major General DOB: –/–/1952. POB: Jalo, Libya
3 Matuq, Matuq Mohammed Position: Secretary for Utilities DOB: –/–/1956. POB: Khoms
4 Qadhafi, Mohammed Muammar Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime DOB: –/–/1970. POB: Tripoli, Libya
5 Qadhafi, Saadi Commander Special Forces. Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime. Command of military units involved in repression of demonstrations DOB: 25/05/1973. POB: Tripoli, Libya
6 Qadhafi, Saif al‑Arab Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime DOB: –/–/1982. POB: Tripoli, Libya
7 Al‑Senussi, Colonel Abdullah Position: Director Military Intelligence Title: Colonel DOB: –/–/1949. POB: Sudan
Entities
1 Central Bank of Libya Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime.  
2 Libyan Investment Authority Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime. a.k.a: Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO) Address: 1 Fateh Tower Office, No 99 22nd Floor, Borgaida Street, Tripoli, Libya, 1103
3 Libyan Foreign Bank Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family and a potential source of funding for his regime.  
4 Libyan Africa Investment Portfolio Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime. Address: Jamahiriya Street, LAP Building, PO Box 91330, Tripoli, Libya
5 Libyan National Oil Corporation Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime. Address: Bashir Saadwi Street, Tripoli, Tarabulus, Libya

* *** *


For information media • not an official record
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

  1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
  2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
  3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member’s armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

  1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
  2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee’s responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
  3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
  4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

  1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
  2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*3)                                                     INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW – ‘THE PRINCIPLES OF NUREMBERG’
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.
Principle I

    Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

    Principle II

    The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

    Principle III

    The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

    Principle IV

    The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

    Principle V

    Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

    Principle VI

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    (a) Crimes against peace:
    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    (b) War crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    (c) Crimes against humanity:
    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime.

    Principle VII

    Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of international humanitarian law, the body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war. Read full overview
Advertisements

March 22, 2011 - Posted by | Fighting corruption internationally, Human rights, Internationally significant information

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: