Amnesty International's Take on the Human Rights situation in Libya

[Tiggeroshii]

In 2003, Amnesty International had been calling for intervention in the Sudanese Civil war which cost the lives of nearly half a million civilians in what was amounted to as a clear genocide by President Al Bashir. More recently they called for an intervention in Libya as the killing and targeting of civilians by Kadafi intensified. Here is an update on the situation as documented by their researchers -most of whom are presently on the ground in Benghazi:

-----------------------

Following a United Nations Security Council resolution on 18 March 2011 to allow foreign military action against Libya, conflict still rages between al-Gaddafi’s forces, rebels based in Benghazi, and international forces attacking from the air. Amnesty International examines some of the human rights issues at stake.

What are the obligations under international law of parties to the conflict in Libya?
There is now an international armed conflict in Libya between coalition forces and the Libyan government.

There is also a non-international armed conflict between the Libyan government and rebel fighters. It is critical that all parties involved in the conflict respect fully international humanitarian law (the laws of war) and applicable human rights law.

All parties must refrain from targeting civilians or civilian objects. They should strictly adhere to the definition of military targets and the prohibition of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks contained in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, which reflect customary international law.

The rules described here apply to all parties and to all situations of armed conflict (international or non-international). In particular, there should be:
(a) no direct attack on civilians or civilian objects;
(b) no indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks;
(c) all necessary precautions, including in choice of means and methods of attack, to minimize harm to civilians;
(d) no attack on the infrastructure even if used for military purposes, if the incidental short-term and long-term consequences for civilians would be disproportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage sought in the specific attack;
(e) no attack on media outlets solely because they are being used for propaganda purposes;
(f) no attack on other civilian objects even if their destruction is deemed by the attacker to be likely to lessen the will of the enemy to fight; and
(g) humane treatment for all those not directly participating in hostilities, including fighters who have been captured, injured or have surrendered.


http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/qa-human-rights-and-war-libya-2011-03-21

[Catherina]

1. Rec'd. Thank you. That seemed balanced and fair n/t

[dipsydoodle]

2. ditto

and hello Catherina.

:hi:

[Catherina]

8. Hi Dipsydoodle

:hi:

[ProSense]

3. "Have Libyan forces been respecting international humanitarian law?"

<...>

Have Libyan forces been respecting international humanitarian law?
Amnesty International is troubled by reports that Libyan government forces have been bombarding rebel-held cities and towns, including through the use of artillery. In a densely populated urban environment, artillery cannot be used in a way that properly distinguishes between civilians and fighters. Its persistent use in these circumstances violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that Libyan airstrikes directly targeted civilians or were indiscriminate. Amnesty International is still working to verify these reports. We have received worrying reports of ongoing shelling or air strikes in several towns and villages where civilians are likely to have been at risk, and which are effectively cut off from the rest of the world because telephone networks have been disconnected. There are serious concerns for the fate of the population trapped in these areas.

While the use of aircraft to attack military targets may be legitimate, attacking forces must adhere strictly to the rules that safeguard civilians. Under no circumstances can they carry out attacks which directly target civilians or are indiscriminate or disproportionate.

<...>

What is Amnesty International calling for from al-Gaddafi's Government?
Colonel al-Gaddafi must immediately rein in his security forces and end killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.

He should disclose the names of all those whom his forces are holding and where they are held and allow international access to ensure their safety and well-being.

<...>

What is the situation with enforced disappearances in Libya?
Amnesty International received a number of disturbing reports of enforced disappearances. There are serious concerns that those who have disappeared and are in the custody of Colonel al-Gaddafi's forces are at great risk of being tortured or even killed.

Some may be held as bargaining chips, possibly to put pressure on friends and relatives who may support the opposition. Families of people believed to be held by Colonel al-Gaddafi and his forces fear even making their names public lest their captors take reprisals against them.

<...>

Good report.

[karynnj]

4. Interesting stuff - this is a good way to put this into prospective.

The implicit comparison of the Sudan civil war, where it took a long time for the international community to become involved led to millions killed, is interesting. The international community, including the US, did intervene and that set the time table for the recently held referendum where the South voted for independence. Therefore, international involvement did lead to less violence (it continued in Darfur) and maybe the long term solution - it is too early to tell. This makes Sudan's history a good choice for anyone wanting to argue for humanitarian intervention.

As someone who was disturbed by the potential massacre of hundreds of thousands - which is possibly what was coming - when Us officials had all spoken of being inspired by the protests, which could have encouraged them, but concerned of the costs in lives, money and potential damage to our reputation that could happen if we attacked, even as part of a coalition.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Thanks for the edit suggestion

=)

I do believe -however, that because there were substantially more people killed in Sudan than were necessary. I believe that if the international community had acted in 2003 -when it started, there would have been several years worth of killing halted. Which is why -despite the fact it eventually ended somewhat peacefully, so many thousands of people would have lived if there was intervention.

[Adsos Letter]

6. K&R for some clarity and points of reference.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. Dig the candle ;)

Did you make the conference this weekend? =D