DIPLOMACY FOR CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: Case of Libya

By Philippe Tunamsifu Shirambere

To understand the necessity of diplomacy for contemporary International Law, the current situation in Libya is a good example for me. The article 2, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter provide that “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”, the paragraph 4 precise that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”, and the paragraph 7 provide that “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,…”.

Diplomacy has traditionally been learned by practicing the art, by apprenticeship. As an art of conducting international relations which allow States to negotiate and sign treaties and agreements, I can mentionne two kinds of diplomacy: bilateral and multilateral.

Indeed, in bilateral relations, diplomacy plays an important role to keep or maintain friendly relations between States in their international relations while multilateral diplomacy, the new diplomacy, is working for the big issues and going beyond bilateral relations. Interaction between bilateral and multilateral diplomacy creates a new pattern of political behaviour. Thus, multilateral diplomacy is often considered to be a type of superstructure over bilateral diplomacy.

When I analyze the situation in Libya, it’s clear that it is an internal crisis and the fundamental principle of sovereignty and the prohibition of the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Libya could be respected (art 2, 1 and 7). However, the frontiers of Libya are not absolute when the Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi, Head of State, adopts a criminal behavior to its population, bombing Benghazi and others towns, which can constitute a threat to international peace and security. In this circumstance the United Nations has the responsibility to protect and support populations that are in jeopardy or under serious threat inside their State, it’s what the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan discussed the dilemma in the conceptual language of two sovereignties, of state and of the people. Meaning that, the United Nations has to be dynamic and living creatures because the primary responsibility of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security (art 24, 1 UN Charter).

Introducing the resolution, the Foreign Minister of France, Alain Juppé, said “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released”.  The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”. In my view, the adoption of the Resolution 1973 (2011), which approves “no-fly zone” over Libya and authorizing all “necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces is not the interference in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Libya but the response to the responsibility to protect civilian population under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi.

To come up the conclusion, the current situation in Libya shows again that diplomacy is a tool of both International Relations and International Law through negotiation and cooperation. That is why I agree that diplomacy is necessary for the contemporary International Law.