Changes

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced that U.S. military forces had already commenced operations in Libya on March 19 "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" citing UN Resolutions as the authority to do so.  However, the Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state under most circumstances, and many practitioners and observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advises,

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced that U.S. military forces had already commenced operations in Libya on March 19 "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" citing UN Resolutions as the authority to do so.  However, the Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state under most circumstances, and many practitioners and observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advises,

{{CquoteIf a no-fly zone is imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against another state, in the absence of U.N. authorization based on Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, and depending on the form the no-fly zone operation takes, that state might be entitled to consider the imposition of the no-fly zone itself an “armed attack.” Even if the no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack”—which in itself may be a subjective judgment—that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

{{Cquote|If a no-fly zone is imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against another state, in the absence of U.N. authorization based on Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, and depending on the form the no-fly zone operation takes, that state might be entitled to consider the imposition of the no-fly zone itself an “armed attack.” Even if the no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack”—which in itself may be a subjective judgment—that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

A hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two days earler revealed differences of opinion between Senators and the administration about intervention, the need for Congressional authorization for use of force, and the likelihood  [[al Qaeda]] and other violent Islamists could take advantage of the situation.

A hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two days earler revealed differences of opinion between Senators and the administration about intervention, the need for Congressional authorization for use of force, and the likelihood  [[al Qaeda]] and other violent Islamists could take advantage of the situation.