Libya, NATO Intervention 2011 Case Study
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
A. Classification of the conflict and applicable law
1. (Document A, paras -, , Document B, paras -, and 83) How would you classify the conflict in Libya in 2011? Who were the parties to the conflict? Was it an international or a non-international armed conflict? Did the NTCs consent to the military intervention matter for classification?
2. (Document A, paras -, Document B, para. ) When did France, the United Kingdom and the United States become parties to the conflict? Did their participation internationalize the conflict? Did NATO become a party to the conflict on 31 March 2011? Can an international military alliance such as NATO become a party to a conflict? What was NATO’s role in the conflict?
3. Since NATO is not a party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, is it nevertheless bound by IHL? If yes, why? Since NATO members are not all bound by the same IHL instruments, how is it possible to determine which instruments are applicable to NATO? Is NATO only bound by IHL rules applicable to all its members? Or is NATO, as an international organization, only bound by customary IHL?
4. (Document A, paras -) How did Amnesty International classify the conflict? What law, in the opinion of Amnesty, is applicable in this case? Why do you think they concluded this? Do you agree?
B. NATO’s airstrikes
a. (Document A, paras -, , , , , Document B, para. 88) How would you define the notion of ‘military objective’? What conditions need to be fulfilled for something to be considered a military objective? Can a civilian home ever be a legitimate military objective? If, as NATO told the Commission, (Document B, para. 88) the regime was using civilian rather than military structures in support of military action, would this make any civilian house a military objective? Particular houses? Under what circumstances could such houses be attacked? (P I, Arts 51(5)(b), 52(2); CIHL, Rules 8, 14)
b. (Document A, para. , Document B, para. 88) How could one find evidence for the fact that a house constituted a military objective eight months after an attack has taken place?
6. Are airstrikes only lawful if there is “zero expectation” of death and injury of civilians? Does the fact that civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian property were caused automatically mean that IHL was violated? What fundamental principles applied to all NATO airstrikes in this situation? (P I, Arts. 48, 51(5)(b), 52, 57; CIHL, Rules 1, 7, 14-21)
7. (Document A, paras -)
a. Was the strike in Tripoli on 19 June 2011 lawful under IHL? Does the fact that the home was located in a densely built-up area influence your answer? The time of the attack? What additional information, if any, would you need in order to make a proper assessment of this incident?
b. Is it a violation of IHL if, as NATO claims, “an errant weapon” did indeed cause these casualties? A war crime? Incidental damage? How would you define incidental damage? What obligation could possibly have been violated? (P I, Art. 57; CIHL, Rules 15-21).
8. (Document A, paras -)
a. Was the house that had been used for meetings by military officers until August 1 2011 a legitimate military target? On 1 August 2011? 2 August 2011? 4 August 2011? ICIL and Amnesty International reached the conclusion that NATO hit the wrong building. If their conclusions are correct, is such a ‘mistake’ prohibited under IHL? Are there any legal consequences for such an error? What obligation could possibly have been violated? (AP I, Art. 57; CIHL, Rules 15 and 17).
b. According to the information in paragraph , the people using the nearby house had fled on the 2 August, leaving the house empty by the time NATO struck. Could NATO have known that the targets were no longer present in that area? Due to the fact that the gate had been left open? What does IHL require NATO to do before an attack in order to make sure that the target is still a lawful one under IHL? (P I, Art. 57; CIHL, Rules 15 and 18).
9. (Document A, paras -, Document B, para. 89)
a. Based on the information available, how would you determine whether the first strike launched after 11 pm was legitimate? The second strike that was launched shortly after? Was NATO under any obligations to ensure that information about rescuers at the scene factored into the decision to launch the second strike? (P I, Art. 57; CIHL, Rules 15, 18 and 19).
b. There are discrepancies between the information provided by civilians and the opinions of ICIL and Amnesty International in paragraph , and the information provided by NATO in paragraph . Does IHL prohibit attacks in cases of doubt about the nature of the target (P I, Art. 52(3))?
10. (Document A, para. ) Does the time and place of the strike in Sirte on 16 September 2011 influence your answer on whether this attack violated IHL? Could the fact that many people had fled the area prior to the attack indicate that NATO had appropriately warned the civilians in the area? Would an attack be lawful if NATO had informed the local civilians prior to the attack with leaflets and radio broadcasts and, despite these warnings, some civilians decided to stay? Would NATO have to make sure that not one civilian was still living in that area for the strike to be lawful? Or is it a civilian’s ‘own fault’ if he or she decides to stay?
11. (Document A, paras , -) Was the attack on the house in Sirte on 25 September 2011 lawful under IHL? If the Brigadier-General in al-Gaddafis forces was present? If he was not present? Would NATO have to be 100% sure that he was in the house to launch the strike? If NATO knew that he was present but also knew that several civilians were in the house at the same time, would the attack still be lawful? Do you agree with Amnesty Internationals conclusion that the presence of at least seven civilians in the house at the time of the attack rendered it disproportionate? (P I, Art. 51(5)(b); CIHL, Rule 14).
12. (Document A, paras , , Document B, paras 84, 122) What precautions did NATO take in Operation Unified Protector? Do you agree that NATO showed a “demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties”? Are NATOs efforts to be judged by reference to the Operation as a whole, or are evaluations to be made on a case-by-case basis? (P I, Art. 57; CIHL, Rule 15)(Document A, paras -)
C. Investigation of possible breaches
13. (Document A, paras  ) Is NATO under obligation to provide information about any investigation proceedings to families of those killed in airstrikes? Must the results of those investigations be disclosed publicly? Must the victims be informed of the results? What aims would such public disclosure fulfil? If IHL does not prescribe such an obligation of transparency, on what could it be based? Is NATO obliged to provide reparation to victims of airstrikes and their families? (GC I, Art. 49; GC II, Art. 50, GC III, Art. 129, GC IV, Art. 146; AP I, Art. 85, 91; CIHL, Rule 150)
14. (Document A, paras. , ) Amnesty International suggests that NATO should investigate the conduct of its own forces – do you agree? Is there a legal basis for concluding that this should be so? Who should be responsible for conducting such investigations? Individual Member States who took part in the operation? All NATO Member States? The NTC, as suggested in para. ? (GC I, Art. 49, 50; GC II, Arts 50, 51; CIHL, Rule 158)
15. (Document A, para. ) Amnesty International states that “wherever sufficient admissible evidence of any violations of IHL is found, those responsible should be brought to justice”. Who would you consider responsible? The individual soldiers carrying out the attacks? The commanders planning them?
16. (Document A, para. ) Can a civilian life really be weighed against an important military advantage? Is this a question of IHL? If we consider that IHL’s “central purpose is to limit, to the extent feasible, human suffering in times of armed conflict” is IHL merely a means of containing damage?
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.
We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.
High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.