Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - The responsibility to protect and the war in Libya

  • Edited by Don E. Scheid, Winona State University, Minnesota
  • Book:
    The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention
    Published online:
    05 June 2014
    Print publication:
    24 April 2014, pp 46-58

  • Summary

    Responsibility to protect (RtoP) seemed to be a more prudent expression, and the principle was adopted by a vote of the UN General Assembly in 2005. It is entirely possible that the initial designers of the doctrine, RtoP, were driven by pure and generous intentions. Whether a doctrine of armed humanitarian intervention (AHI) should become a permanent feature of international law is greatly to be doubted so long as its interpretation and application is entrusted to the UN Security Council. The Libyan war represents the only example where the new doctrine of RtoP has been applied, but it seems to embody its spirit well. The intervention in Libya confirms a messianic plan familiar to Western democracies. Because of their technological, economic, and military successes, they are convinced of their moral and political superiority over the other countries of the globe.