In recent days, in Libya, and in particular in the Sirte area, some "targeted" bombardments by the US aviation have taken place, which would have hit some Caliphate stations in that area: the operation was, for many , a surprise, both from a political and a legal point of view.
As far as the first aspect (the political one) is concerned, in fact, they let us think above all of the times and methods of the US attack: since after the missions (whose outcome could be discussed) in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has more and more disengaged from the Middle East and in particular from the Mediterranean world, leaving the management of the so-called Arab springs to the same European states.
With regards to Libya, we will remember the disastrous management of the French and English military intervention of the 2011; and it cannot fail to consider the dreaded hypothesis of entrusting Italy with the new mission in the North African country that should have been deployed at the beginning of last spring (ironically, it could be said), this time in an anti-ISIS function.
What some analysts hypothesize is that, in the United States, it may be a response to Russia, a sort of trial of strength, since in June the general Haftar - Fayez al Sarraj's bitter rival (pictured, sitting on the right) - he had visited Moscow, to discuss, as far as emerged, even a possible supply of weapons from the state ruled by Putin.
The only data in all this that would seem certain is that the request for American military intervention was made by the Libyan government itself (the one that the United Nations intends to guarantee national unity, chaired by Fayez al Sarraj) and authorized directly from Obama.
From here, we come to the juridical profile: if what was stated is true (and the statements of both Al Sarraj himself and the various members of the US government - (in primis) of the Department of Defense - they seem to confirm it -, US military intervention could be considered legitimate, provided that it can, above all, recognize the legitimacy of the current Libyan government.
In particular, one should reason in terms of effectiveness of the same, that is if it, in addition to enjoying international recognition (on which one could also argue, and which in any case would not seem at all unanimous), has the strength to establish itself within Libya itself, since, to this day, there are important pockets of resistance and conflict (including the House of Representatives in Tobruk, which still has to vote for its trust and, until a few weeks ago, the New National General Congress of Tripoli, recently dissolved, without counting the role of General Haftar himself referred to above).
It is precisely in these terms, not surprisingly, that Russia has expressed itself in these hours, which considered the American raids on Sirte to be completely illegitimate, precisely because they were requested by a government that would not be effective and internationally recognized by all.
Certainly, there are many interests at stake, as well as interpretations (including juridical ones) that can be given: for example, if the UN resolution 2259 of the 2015 seems to legitimize the use of any means ("Reaffirming the need to fight by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law ..."), It is also true that there is no reference to Chapter VII of the UN Charter (generally foreseen in major international missions to recognize the chrism of international legality to armed interventions).
Rather, on the other hand, if the consent of the Libyan government were lacking (or considered illegitimate), it is clear that the American military actions would have been carried out in violation of the 2 paragraph of the 4 paragraph of the aforementioned Charter (according to which the members must to abstain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, whether against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations), except that there had been a authorization from the Security Council (and this would not seem to be the case, although the ones granted were not missed in the past "ex post") Or had been in a situation of self-defense.
And it is precisely to the latter, in fact, that some of the American exponents and, more generally, those who "marry" the legitimacy of the US intervention in the North African country, referring to the RAID in discussion (and, presumably, those that will follow) in war on terrorism against ISIS, to be considered as carried out worldwide (that is, for the whole globe, if it were needed: see, for example, the targeted killings committed by the APR in different geographical areas, not always with the consent of the State in which they were performed) and , substantially, without time constraints.
So, to summarize, or we acted in the presence of a valid consent of the Libyan government (necessary, according to authoritarian doctrine, even in the case of responsibility to protect - R2P, responsability to protect - that is the duty of a state to protect its own population or that of another state in the event of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, derogable only from a resolution “and following the best practices"Of the Security Council of the United Nations), or the American intervention must have taken place in a situation of legitimate defense which, by its nature, does not provide for a preventive" authorization "of the UN, and which is explicitly provided for by art. 51 of the relevant Charter, according to which "No provision of this Charter prejudices the natural right of individual or collective self-defense, in the event that an armed attack takes place against a Member of the United Nations, as long as the Security Council has not taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security ...".
We could discuss the notion of legitimate defense (even preventive), on the concept - previously mentioned - of war on terrorism as well as on that relating to the effectiveness of the current Libyan government - in the terms clarified above - but the interpretations could be of the most disparate.
On the other hand, international law is - very often - created by the strong, and as such interpreted in different situations: in this sense, it certainly does not help the "Onusian" language, often stuffed with "constructive ambiguity ", that is of that particular technique used in diplomacy that, if on the one hand it allows to obtain the adoption of a text, despite the absence of a consensus between the states that should vote for it, on the other it increases (and it is not always a fact positive) the interpretative possibilities of the same.
The impression (which can also be derived from other facts - recent and not - that are characterizing the world geopolitical scenario) is that we are witnessing a new distance war between the USA and Russia, with all the implications (or causes) regarding the struggle to terrorism and the obvious interests of European states in the North African scenario, and beyond.
(photo: US Air Force / cdm presidency / US Air National Guard)
