The right to stop dictators like Gaddafi

There are limits not to cross even for dictators. They think they have the right to do whatever they wish to their people. But the conscience of people and the dynamics of global politics do not allow them.

Likewise, the international community stood up and told Libya’s Gaddafi that he has no right to massacre his own people. This is a late but welcome move. Its importance goes beyond the Libyan case as it sends a clear message to all dictators of the world that they are not free to kill.

Once more we understand the moral limits to territorial sovereignty and the old principle of non-intervention. No one can hide behind these outdated terms from the 19th century to go ahead with massacres under the protective shield of sovereignty and non-intervention. No concept can serve to protect a state that engages in massive, widespread and systematic killings of its own citizens.

The borders of a state are not the walls of a prison in which the lives of its “inmates” are left to the mercy of the “guards,” that is, the dictators. The conscience of the people, as well as international humanitarian law, does not accept turning a country into a prison camp. People interfere, international organizations get involved, democratic governments take part to stop the dictators who cross moral limits. However late, limited, calculated and in some cases ineffective these may be, the dictators would know that one day they will be held accountable by their own people and the international community.

In this context humanitarian intervention is a means to force dictators to comply with international human rights laws. I know some who, based on the idea of sovereignty and order, would oppose humanitarian intervention. To them, we should issue the reminder that the “rights of states” come from the rights of individuals/citizens and therefore do not have any autonomous moral standing. The right of autonomy and thus sovereignty for states is derived from the respect on the part of the state for the right of the individual’s autonomy. If the ultimate justification for the existence of states is the protection of the natural/basic rights of citizens, then, as Fernando Teson argues in his book “Humanitarian intervention,” “a government that engages in substantial violation of human rights betrays the very purpose for which it exists.” As a result, the government loses not only domestic but also international legitimacy. Therefore, in such a case even foreign armies are morally entitled to help victims of oppression in overthrowing dictators.

The subject of international direct action should not be confined to genocide, enslavement and mass murder; serious, disrespectful, yet not genocidal oppression also justifies international military action.

Moreover, international order and peace are sustained better in an international system that consists of countries respectful to the basic rights of its citizens. This is repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the post-Cold War era. Starting with Resolution 688 on Northern Iraq, the UNSC considered humanitarian crises emanating from massive human rights violations as “threats to international peace and security,” authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Today it is crystal clear that there is a linkage between international peace and security and humanitarian crisis.

Furthermore from an international law perspective, it can be argued that the non-intervention principle is not an absolute norm in the contemporary international normative system. The UN Charter 2(7) forbids intervention in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. But what are the “matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction”? International lawyers argue that to the extent a matter has been internationalized, the traditional prohibition against “intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a state” is inapplicable. International undertakings have transformed the human rights violations that constitute a humanitarian crisis from domestic jurisdiction to international jurisdiction.

When and if, as Michael Walzer writes in his book “Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad,” the violation of human rights is on a scale which “shocks the moral conscience of mankind,” direct military action authorized by the UN is morally and legally justified to stop the continuation of gross violations of human dignity and rights. This applies to the Libyan case as well.

My only concern is that this humanitarian cause should not be sacrificed to the eccentricities of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his tendencies to show off in order to secure re-election next year. This will be really, really ugly.

Gaddafi’s right to bomb his own people

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is exercising his “right” to bomb his own people. This is a “right” enjoyed by dictators. But the implementation of such a “right” threatens not only the nationals of Libya but regional and international security, thus the international community cannot remain indifferent to the massacres of people in Libya by Gaddafi.

The UN Security Council decided to impose sanctions and the International Criminal Court will be investigating the events in Libya to determine whether they constitute a crime against humanity. These are all welcoming measures but they still may prove ineffective to stop the massacres of the people.

Imposing an arms embargo, a travel ban and freezing the assets of Gaddafi, his family and his close associates, will not prevent the regime from committing further crimes. Besides, contrary to the claims by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, they do not harm the Libyan people. The UN Security Council sanctions can only be criticized for not being strong enough. I think more should be done.

The Libyan case forces us to rethink the link between a legitimate regime based on respect for human and citizens’ rights and international security. We should be aware of the fact that there exists a link between respect for human rights and maintaining national and international security. A working human rights regime constitutes one of the prerequisites for providing national security, which is domestic peace based on a wide-ranging social consensus concerning the legitimacy of a political regime.

Those who approach politics from a security-centric point of view should keep in mind that demands for human rights are, in fact, generated from the security concerns of individuals. Thus, human rights in their essence reflect the search for the physical and moral integrity of individuals. The idea of the inviolability of basic rights and freedoms aims at “securing” the individual as a moral agent. Thus one can ground human rights in a search for security at the individual level with undeniable links to security at a national level.

There exists, therefore, a tight link between individual security put forward as demands for human rights, and collective security at the national level. It is rather impossible to reach the objective of national security in countries where systematic and persistent human rights violations take place, let alone the massacres we have been seeing in Libya. Massive human rights violations destroy domestic peace and security by undermining the legitimacy of the political system. What is left then is not a legitimate government but a sheer mechanism of violence.

Furthermore, global peace and security are built through a legitimate government nationally that respects the basic rights of its citizens. Therefore, while the respect for human rights enhances national security, the state that is involved in systematic and massive violations of human rights endangers not only national but also international peace and security.

It is necessary and relevant to investigate the interplay between respect for human rights and international security for at least two reasons. First, the behavior of a state in the international arena cannot be separated from the way in which it treats its own citizens at home. This is to say that the kind of political regime prevalent domestically strongly influences its policy towards the outside world. Second, violations of human rights do not only harm individuals, groups or the people in the country concerned but may well endanger others, particularly in regional countries, as the repercussions of human rights violations cannot be confined within national borders. For instance, the outflow of refugees, which is one of the most tragic outcomes of human rights violations, may reach a massive scale in some cases with grave security implications for both the sending and receiving countries, damaging both regional and international security. This is clearly being seen in the Libyan case as hundreds of thousands of foreign workers are either trapped in Libya and the outpouring into neighboring countries, which is creating a humanitarian crisis.

Hence, the kind of political regime and the form of state-society relationship lay at the heart of the stability-instability problem determining, to some extent, prospects for international peace. This is to say that international security is dependent on domestic peace, which is in turn heavily influenced by the level of respect for human rights and a legitimate national government.

No ruler has the absolute right to treat its people any way he wishes. There are moral and legal limits to a sovereign’s right to kill his own people. And I think Gaddafi has passed that limit and this necessitates measures to stop him.