1. Refer to DEMONSTRATIONS AND CRACKDOWN IN NORTH ORKAN (page 2), paragraph no. 8:

a. Please research on the meaning of the term “necessary measures” in the context of military operations.

i. Is it a term that refers to a particular/limited set of military actions? If so, what military actions in particular are included?

ii. Or should it be taken in its literal sense – that is, is it open to interpretation by military commanders on the ground, based on the exigency/ies of the situation?

The term “necessary measures” seems to be a wide position for interpretations.

“All necessary measures” is the language employed by the Security Council to authorize the use of force under Chapter VII, Article 42 of the U.N. Charter (Williams & Popken, 2012). In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, it expressedly stated that:

“Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above”

In paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973, the Security Council authorized states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians “notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970.” In common language, when “notwithstanding” is used as a preposition, as it is in paragraph 4, it means “despite.” Thus, states could use all necessary measures to protect civilians “[despite] paragraph 9” of Resolution 1970. Although the meaning of this phrase has been debated, the logical interpretation is that this phrase created an exception to the paragraph 9 arms embargo for measures that were necessary to protect civilians—measures that may include arming and training civilians so that they may protect themselves (Williams & Popken, 2012).

It seems that it leaves a big latitude towards open interpretation regarding operations done. Since the abovementioned resolution emphasizes on “necessary measures”, it may be related to the principle of humanitarian intervention.

The Security Council, as the organ of the International community entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, has both the legal authority and responsibility to undertake all necessary measurea to halt, and prevent large-scale violations of fundamental human righs. It is right then to associate “necessary measures” with humanitarian intervention? Humanitarian intervention is defined as military intervention, which is undertaken without the athoization of the UNSC, with the purpose off halting or preventing large-scale violations of human rights. (Gill & Fleck,2010)

While the authorization to use force to protect civilians is not unprecedented, the speed at which the Security Council reacted to violence in Libya is certainly refreshing. Further, the international coalition actually: (1) used all necessary resources, including attack helicopters and predator drones; and actually (2) struck all necessary targets to fulfill its mandate to protect civilians.

Moreover, Williams and Popken emphasized that the immediate and aggressive implementation of “all necessary measures” was a dramatic shift from the timid and tardy implementation conducted by the international community in response to attacks on civilians in Bosnia. In Bosnia, over a year passed before the Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take “all necessary measures, through the use of airpower” to protect “safe areas.” And even after the Security Council authorized the use of force, force was rarely actually used. In one instance, in response to Serbian attacks on a safe area, General Michael Rose delivered a letter to Serbian military leader Ratco Mladić asking Serbia to please stop violating the weapons exclusion zone. Another time, in response to Serbian attacks on civilians, General Rupert Smith wrote to Mladić to remind him that Smith had the authority to order NATO airstrikes, though he did not actually do so. And yet another time, in response to the killing of one U.N. peacekeeper and the wounding of four others, General Michael Rose “lodged an official complaint” with Bosnian Serb leaders. Throughout the war in Bosnia, U.N. officials repeatedly denied NATO permission to target Serbian anti-aircraft systems despite repeated.

There is a danger that the expression “all necessary means” will be interpreted in a sense as part of the jus in bello, i.e as part of the law that regulates individual targeting and the conduct of hostilities. Such an interpretation would suggest that each individual act of targeting needs to be justified as an act that is essential for achieving the broader objective. This has not been the previous practice, would be very limiting and would go beyond what international humanitarian law currently provides. The limitations on force authorised by the UN Security Council should be thought of, instead, in terms similar to the jus ad bellum and in terms similar to what we have in the law of self defence. First of all, these limitations are directed, in general terms by reference to the overall levels of force used and not, usually, in connection with individual acts of targeting. Secondly, the key questions in this area are whether it is necessary to use force and whether the force used is proportionate in connection with achieving the objective specified by the resolution. With Security Council authorizations, whether force is necessary is essentially answered by the Security Council authorization. So here the question really is whether the force used is proportionate to achieving the goals set out by the resolution, i.e protecting civilians and civilian populated areas. But this is not IHL (jus in bello) proportionalitybut the sort of proportionality we think of when applying the law of self defence in the jus ad bellum: does the overall amount or direction of the force used go beyond what would be needed to achieve the goal? The difficulty here is that judging this is very difficult for those who do not have the military expertise or requisite information. One is bound to accord some discretion unless it can be shown that there was a lesser means available which was not taken. (Akande, 2011)

BibliographyAkande, D. (2011, March 23). Retrieved September 1, 2015, from EJIL: Talk!: http://www.ejiltalk.org/what-does-un-security-council-resolution-1973-permit/

Gill, T. D., & Fleck, D. (2010). The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations. New York: Oxford.

Williams, P., & Popken, C. (2012). SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973 ON LIBYA: A MOMENT OF LEGAL & MORAL CLARITY.