The new Libya: various aspects

[jmm99]

of this:

from Carl
If I offended you, I apologize. I thought you were fooling around. Another thing I got wrong.

and remove it from your Words and Phrases. The "if" voids any genuine apology (and I don't like apologies anyway). That being said, the rest I accept completely as a valid explanation.

No, I wasn't fooling around. I thought your choice of the poisonous snake was a good one as a relevant discussion example. The snake is an unloved critter to most; and is perceived to be a much greater danger than it actually is.

Thus, the option "to kill" is probably overselected; and the backoff (safely observe), bypass and capture options are probably underselected. Hammers & Nails vs Screwdrivers & Screws, etc.

-------------------------------
Marc:

from MAL

I do not think that what happened to Gaddafi can be used as a generality.

Look what happened to Bagbo: trained troops arrested him and followed orders.

Look what happen to anyone with FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) (two conventional armies): you get tortured and executed without any legal ground, just for fun. And they receive training, at least for FARDC, from 5 major military powers; US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China, Angola.

You agree, do you not, that Gaddafi's execution (and the other executions of Gaddafi's followers after their capture by the opposition) were violations of the Geneva Conventions and AP II (or, worse yet for the opposition, AP I if NATO involvement made it an "international conflict") ? If so, you'd have to admit that the conduct of those opposition forces (the misconduct of Gaddafi's "regular" forces is covered in the next paragraph) is evidence of my point that irregular forces generally care spit about IHL.

As to FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) - and Gaddafi's forces, those uniformed rabbles also care spit about IHL. No doubt they are the armed forces of Westphalian states, and so technically regular forces. Whether their training by the US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China and Angola includes training in IHL, I don't know. If anyone knows, please advise. I'd surely add that to my equations if it is material.

The bottom line for FARDC, SPLA - and some other armed forces (found generally in strong authoritarian, weak authoritarian and weak democratic states) - is that their primary role is often that of providing Internal Security (or Internal Insecurity, if that is more important to their masters). As such, they will care as much for IHL (and IHRL) as the average secret policeman.

As to Bagbo, the earliest reports had him initially captured by French troopers, who then handed him off to the opposition forces. Soon, however, several high-ranking French officials denied that - initial capture was by the opposition; but the French troops were "in support". My bet is that the decision was made (by at least the French and the Ivorian opposition) well ahead of time that Bagbo himself was to be a pure capture mission. If that one was an exception, I think it is an exception that proves my general rule.

Getting back to the material issue and statistics. How many irregular forces have accepted and applied the GCs and APs (the APs only if applicable in their country) ? If a majority of irregulars have done so since 1949, I'll concede that my conclusion (that they care spit for IHL) lacks a preponderence of material evidence.

Regards

Mike