International Legal Legitimation of the 2011 Invasion of Libya: An Analysis of Foreign Approaches

Introduction. The analysis of the international legal assessments of the legitimation mechanism of the United States’ and other NATO countries’ invasion of Libya in 2011 reveals the ambiguous perception in the research circles of the rationale for the Western
countries’ military intervention in the affairs of the North African state. Particularly interesting are the logic and argumentation of those legal scholars who found it acceptable to justify this armed incursion from an international legal point of view.
Materials and methods. The theoretical and empirical basis of the study is formed by international legal documents (primarily of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, practice of the International Court of Justice), foreign and domestic international legal literature, mass media materials. On the basis of integrative approach to scientific legal research in this paper were applied, in particular, hermeneutic, formal-legal, formal-logical, structural-functional and systematic methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis, legal construction and legal modelling.
Research results. The author critically analyzed the evaluations of the armed invasion of Libya by the U. S. and its allies primarily in the foreign international legal literature, focusing on finding ingenious arguments aimed at convincing the international audience of the legitimacy of this intervention.
Discussion and conclusion. Mainly Washington’s efforts to legitimize the intervention have ensured the viability of a favorable approach in foreign international law academia to the perception of the use of force against Libya as “legitimate” and “legally uncontroversial”, of an approach that justifies an expansive interpretation of the term “all necessary measures”, including as a “legal basis for regime change in Libya” being “the only reasonable and effective strategy”, an approach that even does not rule out the admissibility of arming and providing other military assistance to the opposition in accordance with the adopted UN Security Council resolutions. It would be advisable for Russia to take into account the experience of the U. S. in justification and international legal legitimation of its military actions on the territories of foreign states when developing Russia’s own international legal policy in this area.

1. Voronin E.R., 2012. Problema legitimnosti vooruzhonnogo vmeshatel'stva. Livijskij casus belli [The problem of legitimacy of armed intervention. Libyan casus belli]. Mezhdunarodnaja zhizn' [International Affairs]. No. 8. P. 107-118.

2. Vylegzhanin A.N., Korzhenyak A.M., 2025. Mekhanizm mezhdunarodno-pravovoj legitimatsii vooruzhennogo vtorzhenija SShA v Irak v 2003 godu: uroki na budushhee. Chast' pervaja [The mechanism of international legal legitimation of the 2003 U. S. armed invasion of Iraq: Lessons for the future. Part one]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law]. No. 1. P. 111-126.

3. Vylegzhanin A.N., Korzhenyak A.M., 2025. Mekhanizm mezhdunarodno-pravovoj legitimatsii vooruzhennogo vtorzhenija SShA v Irak v 2003 godu: uroki na budushhee. Chast' vtoraja [The mechanism of international legal legitimation of the 2003 U. S. armed invasion of Iraq: Lessons for the future. Part two]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law]. No. 2. P. 370-386.

4. Gevorgyan K.G., 2013. K chitatelju “Mezhdunarodnoj zhizni”. Kontseptsija “otvetstvennost' po zashhite”. Zakljuchenie Mezhdunarodno-pravovogo soveta pri MID Rossii [Toward the reader of “International Affairs”. The concept of “responsibility to protect”. Conclusion of the International Legal Council under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia]. Mezhdunarodnaja zhizn' [International Affairs]. No. 8. P. 71-84.

5. Korzhenyak A.M., 2025. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoj mekhanizm legitimatsii interventsii SShA i drugikh stran NATO v Liviju v 2011 g. [The International Legal Mechanism for Legitimizing the Intervention of the USA and other NATO Countries in Libya in 2011]. Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek [Journal of Law and Administration]. No. 1. P. 111-123.

6. Adams S., 2012. Libya and the Responsibility to Protect. Occasional Paper Series. No. 3. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. New York.

7. Adams S., 2016. Libya. The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford, P. 768-785.

8. Bellamy A.J., 2011. Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm. Ethics & International Affairs. Volume 25. No. 3. P. 263-269.

9. Boyle F.A., 2013. Destroying Libya and World Order. The Three Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution. Atlanta.

10. Chandler D., 2015. The R2P Is Dead, Long Live the R2P: The Successful Separation of Military Intervention from the Responsibility to Protect. International Peacekeeping. Volume 22. No. 1. P. 1-5.

11. Chesterman S., 2011. “Leading from Behind”: The Responsibility to Protect, the Obama Doctrine, and Humanitarian Intervention after Libya. Ethics & International Affairs. Volume 25. No. 3. P. 279-285.

12. Clapham A., 2012. Brierly’s Law of Nations. An Introduction to the Role of International Law in International Relations. Seventh Edition. Oxford.

13. Daalder I.H., Stavridis J.G., 2012. NATO’s Victory in Libya: The Right Way to Run an Intervention. Foreign Affairs. Volume 91. No. 2. P. 2-7.

14. Dietrich J.W., 2013. R2P and Intervention After Libya. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Volume 5. No. 2. P. 323-352.

15. Evans G.R., 2016. R2P: The Next Ten Years. The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford, P. 913-931.

16. Garwood-Gowers A., 2013. The Responsibility to Protect and the Arab Spring: Libya as the Exception, Syria as the Norm? UNSW Law Journal. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 594-618.

17. He Z., Sun L., 2020. A Chinese Theory of International Law. Singapore.

18. Hilpold P., 2012. Intervening in the Name of Humanity: R2P and the Power of Ideas. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Volume 17. No. 1. P. 49-79.

19. Kildron L., 2012. The Libyan Model and Strategy: Why it Won’t Work in Syria. Journal of Strategic Security. Volume 5. No. 4. P. 33-50.

20. Mohamed S., 2012. Taking Stock of the Responsibility to Protect. Stanford Journal of International Law. Volume 48. No. 2. P. 319-339.

21. Orakhelashvili A., 2022. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. Ninth Edition. New York.

22. Payandeh M., 2012. The United Nations, Military Intervention, and Regime Change in Libya. Virginia Journal of International Law. Volume 52. No. 2. P. 355-403.

23. Powell C., 2012. Libya: A Multilateral Constitutional Moment? American Journal of International Law. Volume 106. No. 2. P. 298-316.

24. Ruan Z., 2012. Responsible Protection: Building a Safer World. China International Studies. No. 34. P. 19-41.

25. Teimouri H., Subedi S.P., 2018. Responsibility to Protect and the International Military Intervention in Libya in International Law: What Went Wrong and What Lessons Could Be Learnt from It? Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Volume 23. No. 1. P. 3-32.

26. Thakur R., 2016. Afghanistan, Libya and Syria: UN-authorised interventions and non-intervention. The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge, P. 246-271.

27. Thakur R., 2003. In Defence of the Responsibility to Protect. The International Journal of Human Rights. Volume 7. No. 3. P. 160-178.

28. Thakur R., 2011. Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: Between Opportunistic Humanitarianism and Value-Free Pragmatism. Security Challenges. Volume 7. No. 4. P. 13-25.

29. Tourinho M., Stuenkel O., Brockmeier S., 2016. “Responsibility while Protecting”: Reforming R2P Implementation. Global Society. Volume 30. No. 1. P. 134-150.

30. Ulfstein G., Christiansen H.F., 2013. The Legality of the NATO Bombing in Libya. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Volume 62. No. 1. P. 159-171.

31. Venzke I., 2016. International Law as an Argumentative Practice: On Wohlrapp’s the Concept of Argument. Transnational Legal Theory. Volume 7. No. 1. P. 9-19.

32. Wester K., 2020. Intervention in Libya: The Responsibility to Protect in North Africa. Cambridge.

33. Zifcak S., 2012. The Responsibility to Protect after Libya and Syria. Melbourne Journal of International Law. Volume 13. P. 1-35.