Military Review

Livia: Who really lost legitimacy?

13
Livia: Who really lost legitimacy?The events of recent weeks in Libya have made the question of the legitimacy of the authorities from the point of view of international law from abstract theoretical especially practical. At first, a number of Western leaders used the concept of legitimacy to justify a military operation against Libya. Then this idea was carried out as a unified position of the members of the G-8 club. In the Declaration “New Commitment to Freedom and Democracy” at the G-8 Summit in May 2011, this idea was proclaimed with a pathos not peculiar to serious political documents: “He [Gaddafi] has no future in free and democratic Libya. He has to go. ”

Considering that Gaddafi does not occupy any government posts, the question immediately arose: how and where should he go? There is no legal answer to it. Another question arises: what kind of future “free and democratic” Libya will be if (given that Gaddafi leaves power) there will be no place for citizen Muammar Gaddafi in it? Moreover, the Declaration speaks about the loss of legitimacy not only by Gaddafi himself, but also by the Libyan government: "Gaddafi and the Libyan government have not fulfilled their obligation to protect the population of Libya and have lost their legitimacy."

What conclusions can be drawn from this statement? First, it has now become clear how the legitimacy of a government is lost. It turns out that now it is being lost due to the failure to fulfill the obligation to protect the population. Previously it was assumed that legitimacy is acquired or lost in the elections or by the support of the majority of the population. Secondly, it is now explained to us who decides the issue of the loss of legitimacy. These are countries belonging to the G-8 club. Previously, we thoughtlessly believed that this question was within the competence of the population of the corresponding state. Thirdly, it has now become clear that legitimacy can be lost completely (and if so, then there is a partial loss). Again, with bitterness, you recognize your limitations as you have previously mistakenly assumed that legitimacy is an integral concept and “it either exists or it does not exist”.

As already mentioned, Muammar Gaddafi does not hold any government positions in Libya. He is the Leader of the Revolution, and the Constitution of Libya is the Holy Quran. The country's governance is legally governed by the provisions of the 1977 Declaration of the Establishment of Democracy and current legislation. In addition, neither G-8, nor any state made statements regarding the legality of Gaddafi and the Libyan government. If this is so, then do the G8 countries of Gaddafi and the government of Libya recognize "legal but illegitimate" or "both illegal and illegitimate"? But the question of the legitimacy of the G-8 club itself and the numerous "international conferences on Libya" for some reason are not liked to discuss. Although at the beginning of the conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov raised the question of the “problematic” legitimacy of these conferences. And since the legitimacy is either there or it does not exist, an indication of its “insufficiency” is a diplomatic way of stating its absence.

Well, if we turn not to the “discoveries” of the G-8 club, but to the current international law? How to determine the question of legitimacy in terms of objective and legal signs?

First, the military actions in Libya raised the important question of the legitimacy of the party opposing the Libyan people. On this side are two main subjects - internal and external. Both, to put it mildly, have problems with legitimacy.

Let's start with the external subject. With the beginning of the armed actions of the NATO member states against Libya, these countries became parties to the armed conflict. Let us see what their actions are and whether they comply with the norms of international humanitarian law specifically created to limit the actions of the parties to the conflict. We see the bombing of civilian objects, schools, universities, hospitals, residential buildings. Bombs are buildings of state institutions. Civilians are dying. NATO deliberately destroys objects that are important for the livelihood of the people of Libya. All these actions are expressly prohibited by international humanitarian law, in particular articles of the first, third and fourth Geneva Conventions for the protection of victims of the war 1949.

In addition, we recall that the NATO countries did not enter into an existing armed conflict, but prepared and started it. And they began by a gravest international crime - aggression. No reference to UN Security Council resolutions can justify aggression, since not a single paragraph of these resolutions provided for the bombardment of civilian objects and the conduct of ground military operations. Thus, the legitimacy of the "international" side of the Libyan conflict is out of the question.

As for the "internal" side of the conflict - the so-called "opposition", then its actions do not comply with the norms of international humanitarian law. The shelling of cities, the destruction of prisoners of war, the destruction of civilian objects - all this is recognized as international war crimes. In addition, the cruelty with which the massacre of civilians and prisoners of war is carried out clearly shows that in fact we are not even dealing with a party to the conflict. Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 2 (1977 of the Year) to the Geneva Conventions 1949 of the year establishes that only “anti-government armed forces or other organized armed groups that, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory, are“ party ”to an armed conflict , which allows them to carry out continuous and concerted hostilities and apply this Protocol. As we see, satisfying the first three requirements (command, control of the territory, concerted actions), the so-called The “opposition” does not satisfy the fourth requirement - the application of the norms of international humanitarian law. That is, from the point of view of international law, there is no reason to talk about this very “opposition” as a party to the conflict. The most accurate legal qualifications of Libyan “oppositionists” are criminals according to the internal law of their country and criminals according to international law. Under Libyan domestic law, they are guilty of armed insurrection, murder and destruction, under international law, of violating the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of the 1949 of the Year and the Additional Protocols of the 1977 of the Year.

We note that in many respects the military failures of the Libyan authorities under Gaddafi were associated with their consistent implementation of international humanitarian law, with an attempt to save the lives of people, not only civilians, but also befuddled propaganda by some of the young Libyans who were on the side of the rebels. But the side that is tied by tough bans on forms and methods of warfare, in military terms, is in a less advantageous position compared to the side, these bans are not related.

Few people thought about the possible real meaning of a TV show, which included creating a copy of the Green Square in Tripoli, followed by a demonstration of its capture by “rebels” and supposedly popular jubilation about this, shown by Al-Jazeera TV channel 21 of August. After the TV channel was caught red-handed and the fake character of the square was installed, an “explanation” of this fraud was thrown to the public. Say, these shots were removed from propaganda purposes to suppress the morale of the supporters of Gaddafi. Perhaps this explanation and logical, but not the only possible and not the most convincing. Given the subsequent events, the Aljazir props most likely had a different, more sinister meaning.

The rapid capture by the rebels of Tripoli was explained by the “military force of the opposition”, and “the powerful assistance of NATO from the air” and the “self-confidence of Gaddafi”. However, the most natural explanation for such a “surrender” is the attempt by the Libyan authorities and the army to save the civilian population of the capital. In this regard, the fake Green Square is not only a propaganda, but also a military move. Probably, the Libyan authorities received reliable information (perhaps in the form of a direct ultimatum) that Tripoli would be taken at any cost and in case of resistance - with the complete destruction of the city. And here, the sham square would become not just a desirable detail, but an absolutely necessary means of a grandiose deception of the world community - hiding from the world the fact that Tripoli was demolished from the face of the earth.

It must be admitted that the actions of the Libyan leadership, fully compliant with international humanitarian law, are the only island of wisdom and mercy in this insane war. From the point of view of international law, in fact, the Libyan leadership headed by M. Gaddafi not only was and continues to be legitimate, but is also the only legitimate side of the ongoing conflict.

Within a few months from the beginning of 2011, three new tools were “designed to legitimize” the destruction of objectionable governments and the states were captured, tested and put into international circulation: declaring the elections successful, but recognizing the victory of the loser candidate; declaring the government of the country or its leader no longer legitimacy; and, finally, the approval of these decisions by UNSC resolutions ...

We have yet to realize that the situation in Libya has become a moment of truth for determining the legitimacy of the authorities not only in Libya itself, but also in a striking way - all over the world.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2011/09/07/livia-kto-na-samom-dele-utratil-legitimnost.html
13 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ballian
    ballian 19 September 2011 09: 42
    -14
    Another Kadaffodrocher vyser. They bomb allegedly "civilians," and even "deliberately", reprisals against the "civilian population" - nothing concrete except fantasies and verbiage.
    It's funny in light of the fact that Gaddaf himself is a "revolutionary" - in 1969 illegally threw off the legitimate Libyan government.
    Gaddaffi "does not occupy any posts" - there are no "posts" in the gangs either - everything is there by definition.
    He especially laughed at the fact that the Gaddafi troops were carrying military failures and were defeated because they were saving the civilian population, and no one could have found out about the "demolition of Tripoli from the face of the earth" :))))))
    1. cpls
      cpls 19 September 2011 09: 48
      +3
      Another Ballyanovsky vyser! He piled another pile ...
      1. ballian
        ballian 19 September 2011 12: 56
        0
        Are you small? :))))))
    2. Buivol
      Buivol 19 September 2011 10: 54
      +4
      And who knows about the barbaric bombing of Dresden in 1945? Let's say that before the Allied intelligence bombardment, a disinformation company was conducted. Its essence was that Churchill's relatives allegedly live in Dresden, so he was never bombed and will not be bombed. Well, about the fact that the only legitimate military target in Dresden was a train depot and it remained intact after the bombing. Do you know a lot about the Dropshot plan?
      1. ballian
        ballian 19 September 2011 12: 30
        -7
        In what sense "who knows"? Quite soon after the bombing, despite the fact that there was no "allied" press in Dresden, everything became known and the British generals made excuses to the press.
        1. cyberspace
          cyberspace 19 September 2011 16: 14
          +1
          On March 29, Arthur Harris (Chief of the Royal Air Force Bomber Command) sent a response to the Air Department, where he stated that the bombing was strategically justified and “all the remaining German cities are not worth the life of one British grenadier”
          Is that an excuse? In addition to Dresden, there were Wurzburg, Hildesheim, Paderborn, Pforzheim that did not have any military significance, and were also almost completely destroyed after Dresden.
        2. Buivol
          Buivol 19 September 2011 16: 26
          +1
          I may have indistinctly formulated my thought - who remembers today about war crimes committed by democrats? In particular, the barbaric bombing of German and Japanese cities. Who and when were they tried for? So public opinion was slightly outraged and okay.
          But the information technologies of the middle of the last century were much poorer than the current ones. So, given the current level of brainwashing technologies, the majority of the population would never have been able to learn about the "demolition of Tripoli from the face of the earth".
          1. LESHA pancake
            LESHA pancake 19 September 2011 18: 08
            +2
            Democracy from the point of view of the West is good for everyone against this evil servant. Therefore, the most brutal methods are chosen and it doesn’t matter that the child or woman dies.
        3. LESHA pancake
          LESHA pancake 19 September 2011 18: 04
          +1
          THEREFORE, THERE IS A PHOTO WITH A LOT OF BODIES OF WOMEN OF CHILDREN AND OLD MAN.
    3. LESHA pancake
      LESHA pancake 19 September 2011 18: 14
      +1
      I RECEIVED VIDEO LIKE ANNUAL MONITORING SURVIVALS THAT THE PNS HAS BEEN FIRED FOR NEVER THAT A CAR WITH DRAFT PEOPLE IS SUCH AS KADAFFI IS AN LAMB AS COMPARED TO YOUR FAVORITE KILLERS FROM THE PNS.
    4. figwam
      figwam 19 September 2011 21: 39
      0
      He laughs best who laughs last.
  2. Patriot
    Patriot 19 September 2011 09: 48
    0
    Hurray, comrades. Hello everyone,
    Well, we waited for real confirmation that these PPS oppositionists did not represent any military power.
    Islamic mercenaries, a military company and the French legion did all the dirty work for NATO countries with the connivance of the UN and air support of Western armies from the air.
    "The troops of M. Gaddafi captured 17 British and French" mercenaries "
    Soldiers loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi captured 17 "foreign mercenaries" who were assisting the army of the Transitional National Council in the assault on the city of Beni Walid. According to Colonel Musa Ibrahim's spokesman, technical specialists and military consultants were taken prisoner. "Most of them are French. The group of mercenaries also included two Britons, a native of Qatar and a representative of one of the Asian countries," Ibrahim said in an interview with Syrian Arrai TV on September 18. Read completely: http://top.rbc.ru/special/libya/19/09/2011/616068.shtml

    I’m only afraid that this fact will never reach the Western Erectorate, intimidated by Alcaida through its media.
    1. ballian
      ballian 19 September 2011 09: 59
      0
      First, "patriot" - it says about some "mercenaries"
      secondly, it states that "technical specialists and military consultants were taken prisoner." not the French Legion.
      c-3 Let them show these "mercenaries" and "Frenchmen" - then it will be a "fact"
      .
      NATO command has already stated that none of the troops of the North Atlantic Alliance was captured by supporters of M. Gaddafi, reports Reuters. Representatives of France and the United Kingdom also denied information about the seizure of military specialists from these states.
  3. Patriot
    Patriot 19 September 2011 10: 19
    0
    Hurray, comrades. Hello everyone,
    Well, we waited for real confirmation that these PPS oppositionists did not represent any military power.
    Islamic mercenaries, a military company and the French legion did all the dirty work for NATO countries with the connivance of the UN and air support of Western armies from the air.
    "The troops of M. Gaddafi captured 17 British and French" mercenaries "
    Soldiers loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi captured 17 "foreign mercenaries" who were assisting the army of the Transitional National Council in the assault on the city of Beni Walid. According to Colonel Musa Ibrahim's spokesman, technical specialists and military consultants were taken prisoner. "Most of them are French. The group of mercenaries also included two Britons, a native of Qatar and a representative of one of the Asian countries," Ibrahim said in an interview with Syrian Arrai TV on September 18. Read completely: http://top.rbc.ru/special/libya/19/09/2011/616068.shtml

    I’m only afraid that this fact will never reach the Western Erectorate, intimidated by Alcaida through its media.
  4. Patriot
    Patriot 19 September 2011 10: 26
    0
    Hurray, comrades. Hello everyone,
    Well, we waited for real confirmation that these PPS oppositionists did not represent any military power.
    Islamic mercenaries, a military company and the French legion did all the dirty work for NATO countries with the connivance of the UN and air support of Western armies from the air.
    "The troops of M. Gaddafi captured 17 British and French" mercenaries "
    Soldiers loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi captured 17 "foreign mercenaries" who were assisting the army of the Transitional National Council in the assault on the city of Beni Walid. According to Colonel Musa Ibrahim's spokesman, technical specialists and military consultants were taken prisoner. "Most of them are French. The group of mercenaries also included two Britons, a native of Qatar and a representative of one of the Asian countries," Ibrahim said in an interview with Syrian Arrai TV on September 18. Read completely: http://top.rbc.ru/special/libya/19/09/2011/616068.shtml

    I’m only afraid that this fact will never reach the Western Erectorate, intimidated by Alcaida through its media.
  5. zczczc
    zczczc 19 September 2011 17: 21
    0
    Legitimacy in difficult historical moments is determined not in relation to the laws, but in relation to the people, or rather, its direct support. The whole trouble of such historical moments that people are deceived and disoriented, therefore, often supports the wrong thing.

    Explain to me how it happened that the inhabitants of the USSR, having voted to preserve the Union, themselves went to support Yeltsin?
    1. Gogaskr
      Gogaskr 20 September 2011 00: 26
      0
      THIS happened because people like you didn't give a damn about them. And the Pindos waved them a toilet paper with the inscription Freedom. Read the correct sites: http://nstarikov.ru/
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 20 September 2011 00: 35
        -1
        Well, now this troll will hang with its advertising in every topic ...