Human Rights in Libya

Giacomina De Bona

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136171321
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique

Since the end of the Cold War a democratic wave has swept through large parts of the world, propagating liberal values and giving impetus to the case for human rights in an international society. To date however, the promotion of human rights has presented a mixed account with some countries lagging behind others in terms of their observance. In an effort to account for these differences, this book analyzes the relationship between norms and the social construction of international society, and examines how human rights are promoted in that context.

Focussing on Libya as a case study, Giacomina De Bona criticises the neo-realist approach by demonstrating the impact of international society on the advancement of human rights. Libya has related to the international environment in different ways over time, ranging from isolation to reconciliation and regime change, making it a particularly interesting example.

This book is of particular relevance in light of the recent Arab Spring and raises the question as to whether the coercive imposition of the Western liberal model contributes to establishing respect for human rights in what continue to be the peripheral zones of international society.

1
Introduction

Since around the early 1990s there has been growing optimism about the development of international society, as ever larger numbers of countries abandon totalitarian regimes in favour of more liberal and democratic political systems. After the demise of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the project for an international society composed of a growing community of states sharing a Western liberal model of government was promoted, and was eventually pursued in other regions of the world, such as the Middle East, and incorporated as part of their quest for democracy. However, this ideological stance has come under scrutiny, and recent actions undertaken in the name of international society, particularly with regard to Middle Eastern countries, have increasingly been criticised as examples of manipulation and coercion towards the adoption of a normative system.

This study questions the relationship between norms and the social construction of international society, and examines how human rights are promoted in that context. From the late 1980s, an increasing number of countries adopted human rights standards, but even though international society was perceived to be expanding, it still presented a mixed and contradictory picture in terms of promoting human rights, since certain countries were struggling to conform to its standards and still had a long way to go before they could join the community. This rather confused picture of human rights in international society caught my attention. Human rights were supposed to be the norms upon which international society as a whole would recognise its own values and standards, yet governments were being forced into adopting these standards. The Libyan case in particular seemed to provide an example of these inherent contradictions since it highlighted coercion in the way the standards of international society were transmitted.

In focusing on how human rights issues in individual countries are affected by the international environment that surrounds them, the concept of international society is of key interest, because recent years have seen the dominance of the Western-oriented model of international society and this incorporates strong human rights values. Again, Libya is a good case because over time it has related to the international environment in different ways, and has only recently sought to associate itself with Western international society. Has this significantly affected respect for human rights within the country?

Furthermore, events since February 2011 provide another opportunity to gain an insight into the impact of the expansion of international society, albeit in its more coercive and forceful form. At first, the so-called “Arab Spring” appeared to have reached the most intransigent North African country. Nonetheless, the Libyan situation was quite different from the Tunisian or Egyptian experiences and no quick or easy parallel can be drawn. Having said that, Libya’s post-conflict situation is going to be a very challenging enterprise for the Libyan people, since little previous experience with liberal parliamentary democracy is available. It remains to be seen how, at the societal level, the transition towards the norms of international society will be adopted. Whether democratic governance will be established in the long run or whether Libyan society will spiral into chaos and civil conflict is open to question. In this respect, Libya provides an interesting case for the expansion of international society when coercion is pursued as the main agent of transformation. Ultimately, this case-study will highlight the challenges that lie ahead for the pursuit of international society.

In questioning the extent to which the international environment adds to the promotion of human rights, the present study considers whether the coercive imposition of the Western liberal model contributes to establishing respect for human rights in what continue to be the peripheral zones of international society. The following sections examine the point at issue, outline the aims and the objectives of the research, and place the subject of human rights within the broader literature of international relations theory, supported by a literature review relevant to the research question.

The research question

The study sets out to establish the extent to which human rights are promoted in international society. More specifically, and in relation to the case-study, it asks whether the expansion of international society has impacted on the human rights situation in Libya, and if human rights in Libya have improved.

For the purpose of providing a legal context for human rights, there are first of all peremptory norms in international law for which no derogation is ever permitted by states in the form of treaties. Peremptory norms include the prohibition of genocide, of crimes against humanity, of torture and of slavery, as enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which Libya is not a signatory party. Second, human rights are recognised through a body of political and civil rights as well as of economic, social and cultural rights defined in the 1993 Vienna Conference as “universal, indivisible and interdependent”.

What is peculiar to the Libyan case is the period under the sanctions regime and the reintegration process into the international fold that followed. During the 1990s Libya had been left isolated for its supposed role in international terrorism, and the lifting of sanctions followed the country’s compliance with UN Resolutions that called for state responsibility, compensation and the renunciation of terrorism. With the rehabilitation process, trade and economic activities resumed, following its application to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, and led to the reintegration of Libya into the global economy. The final stages of the reintegration process were characterised by the renunciation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and by Libya’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nonetheless, Libya retains its character as a non-Western country that shares the Arab Muslim cultural heritage.

In order to carry out this research, I made use of a variety of sources. In addition to primary and secondary sources in English, many sources were also available in French, including the work of several francophone writers from North Africa who have carried out research on Libya through the decades since the Revolution of 1969. As there were fewer resources in Italian or in other European languages, material in English and French provided me with the most consistent information and analysis concerning Libya since the early 1970s. As for primary sources, I was able to interview several individuals at the Academy of Post-Graduate Studies in Janzour, Tripoli and in Benghazi, but there were limitations as to how much people would say on the topic since most were concerned not to overstep the official line.

Aims and objectives of the research

The aim of the research was to establish the extent to which human rights are promoted in international society and the limits to the expansion of these standards. In this work a link is established between human rights and international society, the latter being a social construct.

The research, based upon an “international society” approach, is also in part a critique of the neo-realist approach. Human rights do not simply constitute an issue-area in which states decide to cooperate according to their own interests and priorities, as neo-realists would suggest. Human rights have been a constitutive element of international society and its expansion since the end of the Cold War. I will argue that even before 2001 and the subsequent US-led attack on Iraq, the Libyan regime had already started to shift its approach towards human rights issues. Reform initiatives were under way as early as 1986 and 1987, which is to say that, with the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, the shift in the human rights discourse had already begun, and was not just a reaction to the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003.

The present study is also quite critical of neo-liberal views. The rosy picture painted by neo-liberals in the aftermath of the Cold War concerning the expansion of liberal democracy has not yet materialised, and indeed several regions of the world have remained oblivious to it. The optimism of neo-liberals at the beginning of the 1990s has faded, suggesting that the Western liberal model is not necessarily the last form of government to overtake the whole globe.

In terms of theory, my study attempts to shed further light on the way the behaviour of states is shaped by norms, at the level both of political elites and of broader society.

Human rights in international relations (IR) theory: the positivist camp

In introducing the main theoretical perspectives on the role of human rights in international relations theory, it is important to place the research question within the wider field of IR. It should be noted that at an earlier time, when theories of IR were struggling to explain the dynamics of the Cold War or the growing interdependence of the global economy, my research question would not have raised much interest. However, the question has become more relevant within the context of the post-Cold War world and the dynamic forces of international society that have been at work since then.

The discussion of theoretical approaches is squarely set in the so-called rationalist or positivist camp of intellectual investigation. That is to say, my analysis rests on the view that there is “one world out there” and the job of the theory is to explain and evaluate it. My approach to the theory of knowledge, that is, epistemology, derives from positivist assumptions about the social world, in other words the existence of an outside object and of a scientific methodology able to analyse it. Therefore this study does not question the very foundations of social sciences as understood in the Western world, but attempts instead to broaden the horizons of the positivist tradition towards new insights.

This discussion aims to show the gradual shift from a mechanistic understanding of international relations towards a normative-based approach to inter-state interactions, with the aim of enabling the reader to appreciate more clearly how normative issues have a bearing on international relations, as opposed to the way in which anarchic mechanistic/contingent forces tend to be regarded as the only factors of any consequence.

Realism

Classical realism analyses international relations in terms of the distribution of capabilities among the players. Superiority in capabilities is what the players are after. If a balance of power can be achieved then some kind of stability can be maintained, otherwise the players keep striving to improve their capabilities and the possibility of deterring any of their potential rivals. Power is understood as military supremacy over one’s rival. In order to overcome the struggle with one’s enemy, military capabilities and alliances constitute the determining factors in international relations, whereas notions of justice and ethics are considered of secondary importance. They are meant to provide legitimacy for the most powerful actor and to help reconcile less powerful actors to their subordinate positions.

Realism discounts the emergence of values such as a genuine commitment to universal human rights. Morality and state obligation tend to stop at national frontiers. To realists, international liberalism (and the international human rights to which it gives rise) is a utopian snare left over from the European Enlightenment with its excessive belief in human rationality, common standards and the capacity to progress. Realism cannot explain international human rights developments over the past fifty years, except to suggest that most of the states of the world have been either hypocritical or sentimental in approving human rights norms and creating extensive diplomatic machineries for their supervision.

Structural realism

A further elaboration of the realist perspective is offered by structural realism, which was formulated on the eve of the Second Cold War as an attempt to respond to interdependence theory and to reaffirm the importance of bipolarity in world politics. In the 1970s it was a reaction to the popularity of neo-liberalism and an attempt to reclaim the role of the state when transnational economic players were threatening its primacy. As Krasner (1992) contends, “regimes” and “hegemonic stability theory” were invented to uphold the importance of the nation-state in the emerging world economy of the 1980s.

According to Krasner, the major points of the structuralist approach are easily summarised in the sovereignty of states and the anarchy of the international system, the state being a rational self-seeking actor and capability. Sovereign states are the constitutive components of the international system. Sovereignty is a political order based on territorial control. The international system is anarchical and it is a self-help system. In other words, no higher authority can constrain or channel the behaviour of states. States are primarily rational self-seeking actors, concerned with relative gains as opposed to absolute gains since they must function in an anarchical environment. Finally, capability is the critical factor, as the security and well-being of states rest upon their ability to mobilise resources against external threats (Krasner 1992:39).

The major contribution to the structuralist approach is that by Kenneth Waltz, who argues that it is necessary to bring scientific and methodological rigour to the study of international politics. He offers a critique of traditional realism as a theory that has explained the power relations among states and the balance of power in terms of the military and strategic capabilities of individual states, and then proposes a more sophisticated theory that rejects the direct realist link between the individual actor, that is, the state, and the results of its actions. Arguing that it is misleading to explain the behaviour of states at the unit level, and that it should be explained at the system level, he suggests that theory is a tool which is supposed to facilitate intellectual explanation, since without a theory we are left with disconnected facts that tell us very little about the subject of enquiry. Thus it is necessary to distinguish between theory and facts in order to bring the theory to bear on facts in ways that permit explanation and prediction. Isolating one domain from another in order to study it is artificial, but instead of being an intellectual weakness, it is a strength, since “[by] depicting an international political system as a whole, with structural and unit levels …, structural realism establishes the autonomy of international politics and thus makes a theory about it possible” (Waltz 1990:29–33).

International theory should therefore investigate the state system as a separate “domain” that is at a distance from domestic considerations. Taking the international system as a domain apart, with a defined and separate structure, represents a departure from traditional realism. It is also necessary to delineate the central forces and principles of international politics. On the other hand, Waltz refutes the argument that it is possible to infer the condition of international politics from the internal composition of states. He thus rejects the neo-liberal idea that the domestic sphere is of importance and that it influences the international system. The explanation for the behaviour of states is to be found in the systematic constraints on states, rather than in their internal composition. Whereas traditional realists, such as Morgenthau, tried to explain international outcomes by examining the actions and interactions of the units, structural realists scrutinise the structure of the system as a separate domain that conditions the behaviour of states. As Waltz puts it, “realists fail to conceive the structure as a force that shapes and shoves the units” (Waltz 1990:34).

The overriding importance of the international system is the central theme for structural realism. The structure of the international system is characterised by the principle of anarchy, and its anarchic nature is due to the absence of an overarching authority. The anarchic pattern of the international system has withstood the extraordinary changes that have taken place in the internal composition of states. Furthermore, the security dilemma is common to all states and compels states to perform the same primary function, regardless of their ability to do so. Likewise, the character of the units in the system is identical, insofar as anarchy imposes a discipline on states that is the requirement to pursue security before any other function. Consequently, states differ only in terms of their capabilities, not their functions (Waltz 1979:96). Since the distribution of power in the international system overrides anything else (Burchill, Devetak and Linklater et al. 2001:92), it is therefore important to distinguish between great and small powers in the system.

Central to Waltz’s theory is his suggestion that international relations can be divided into system and unit levels of analysis, with what he calls “structure” representing the system level of analysis on which the focus of his theory lies. As a result of the emphasis on system structures, Waltz has considered the role of the units, as well as the impact of the structure of the units themselves, as marginal in relation to the behaviour of their members. In other words, it is the structure at the system level that affects the behaviour of the actors at the unit level and not their internal structure. Waltz has been criticised either for drawing the conceptual boundary between the system and its units too narrowly, or for having too narrowly defined the term “structure” and for assuming that the system level contains only structure. Neo-liberal institutionalists would claim that international organisations are systemic phenomena that may shape system structures.

Structural realism gives greater scientific rigour to the realist analysis of IR. In order to explain the changes in the balance of power and the likelihood of war, structural realists such as Waltz suggested that it was the structure of the international system that compelled states to pursue power. In the struggle for survival in a system where there is no higher authority to impose order, states are obliged to become powerful enough to protect themselves from any aggressive neighbour. Overwhelming power is thus the best option towards the preservation of one’s survival in the international system. Survival is the ultimate end for which states are striving in international relations. It is thus clear that human rights and ethical norms are not relevant in the analysis of the structural realists, since they do not matter in the struggle for survival. Furthermore, any increase in the security of one state jeopardises the security of the other states, thereby creating a perpetual security competition.

Neo-liberalism

In the neo-liberal school, the state is seen as a rational agent that maximises its interests in the international arena. The basic assumptions of the liberal tradition about the international system of states are the same as those of the realist school. In other words, the international state system is characterised by anarchy; the state is the most important actor in the system, and the state is a self-interested actor. Although the liberal and realist schools share the basic assumptions of the nature of the international system, they disagree on the w...