UN Security Council Resolution 1973

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Small Flag of the United Nations ZP.svg
UN Security
Council Resolution 1973
Date: March 17, 2011
Meeting: 6498
Identifier: S / RES / 1973 ( document )
Poll: Pro: 10  Ent. : 5  Cons: 0
Object: Civil War in Libya
Result: accepted
Composition of the Security Council 2011:
Permanent members:

China People's RepublicPeople's Republic of China CHN FRA GBR RUS USAFranceFrance  United KingdomUnited Kingdom  RussiaRussia  United StatesUnited States 

Non-permanent members:
Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina BIH BRA COL DEU GABBrazilBrazil  ColombiaColombia  GermanyGermany  GabonGabon 
IndiaIndia IND LBN NGA POR ZAFLebanonLebanon  NigeriaNigeria  PortugalPortugal  South AfricaSouth Africa 
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 voting-2.svg
Result of the vote in the UN Security Council:
  • Consent: United States, United Kingdom, France, Columbia, Nigeria, Gabon, South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Portugal, Lebanon
  • Abstention: Germany, Russia, People's Republic of China, India, Brazil
    		•

    The Resolution 1973 of the UN Security Council is a resolution that the Security Council of the United Nations at its 6498th meeting on the evening of 17 March 2011 adopted ten supporters and five abstentions. The Security Council reacted to the worsening civil war in Libya .

    content

    The panel found that the Libyan authorities had failed to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1970 . This resolution called on the Libyan government to protect its civilian population and an arms embargo. It condemned the massive and systematic violations of human rights and arbitrary arrests as well as kidnappings, torture and civil executions, as well as acts of brutality and intimidation against journalists and media representatives and their auxiliaries, and urged compliance with Resolution 1738 (2006) .

    First and foremost, it calls for an immediate ceasefire and a complete end to the use of force and all attacks against civilians.

    Second, she advocates intensifying efforts to find a solution that “takes account of the legitimate demands of the Libyan people” and draws attention to the decision of the United Nations Secretary-General , his special envoy for Libya, Abdul Ilah al-Khatib to send to Libya. Reference is also made to the decision by the Security Council of the African Union to send a mediator group to Libya to promote a dialogue there that should lead to a peaceful and lasting solution.

    In addition, the resolution authorizes its member states to set up a no-fly zone over Libya and to take “all necessary measures to protect the population”. Any occupation of Libyan territory in any form by a foreign power was excluded. A reading is also excluded according to which the arms embargo imposed on Libya by Resolution 1970 could now be lifted. The general arms embargo is therefore expressly confirmed.

    The resolution text indicates the importance of the Arab League for peace and security in the region and called on the organization under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations to participate in the implementation of a no-fly zone.

    Vote and result

    Shortly before the vote, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, suggested that the UN Security Council should first vote on a resolution for a ceasefire in Libya. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice , said a majority in the Security Council opposed a separate resolution for a ceasefire. A ceasefire could be included in the resolution on a no-fly zone.

    At least nine votes and the absence of a veto were required for acceptance. Ten councilors then voted in favor of resolution 1973, and since there was no veto, it was adopted.

    There were also five abstentions: China and Russia as permanent, Brazil , Germany and India as non-permanent members of the Council.

    For the resolution 1973 voted by the permanent members: United States , France and the United Kingdom . Of the non-permanent members, seven came in favor: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Portugal from Europe, the African states Gabon , Nigeria and South Africa , Latin American Columbia and Lebanon, the only Arab-Muslim state in the Security Council. Lebanon was also instrumental in formulating the resolution.

    China's representative Li Baodong said that there were serious difficulties with the resolution because a number of specific questions remained open. However, after having attached great importance to the demands of the Arab League and the African Union , they did not want to block the resolution.

    The German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Germany did not want to take part in military measures and that it was only because of this that she abstained from the vote. Germany shared the goals of the resolution. Germany's abstention should not be confused with neutrality.

    Events after the resolution

  • States involved in the subsequent military operation
  • Libya

    • Following the resolution of the Security Council to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, the Paris summit was held in support of the Libyan people. On the same day, France announced air strikes. The Libyan Foreign Minister Mussa Kussa declared that his country would obey the UN resolution and declared a ceasefire.

    After the air strikes on Libya began, Muammar al-Gaddafi denied the validity of the resolution. He stated that it was contrary to the Charter of the United Nations , which prohibits any military interference in the internal affairs of a member country. On March 20, he also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in New York.

    The UN Security Council banned the visit of the African Union's mediation group to Libya, which was planned for the same day . A mediator group spokesman later stated that the mediation mission in Libya would continue as soon as the Libyan air defense was eliminated. On March 19, the mediator group in Nouakchott passed a communiqué in which they invited representatives of the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference , the European Union, the United Nations (including the five permanent members) and other partners and stakeholders to meet in Addis Ababa on March 25th. Representatives of the Libyan government and the National Transitional Council were also invited to meet with the mediation group as soon as possible in Addis Ababa or elsewhere.

    On March 21, it was expected that the UN Security Council would discuss Libya at the suggestion of China. This consultation was then refused and postponed to March 24th. Instead of the urgency meeting called for by Libya, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be advised on the implementation of Resolution 1973.

    Ban Ki-moon has called on Russia to participate in the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Libya. All UN member states should adhere to the resolution and enable its implementation, said Ban Ki-moon on March 22nd in Tunis. This also applies to countries that abstained from voting in the UN Security Council. Ban responded to a question about the Russian government's repeated criticism of the military action in Libya.

    Interpretation of the arms embargo

    The Security Council had already imposed an arms embargo on the Libyan civil war in Resolution 1970. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice , took the view that Resolution 1973 made nothing about arms deliveries to the insurgents. She thinks that arms deliveries to the insurgents are not expressly authorized, but that, on careful reading, one can conclude that arms deliveries to the insurgents are not excluded. She did not want to comment on the question of whether the USA was planning to arm the insurgents. According to the American political scientist Edward C. Luck, the special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, resolutions 1970 and 1973 clearly stated that the arms embargo and the demand for a ceasefire apply to both parties to the conflict in the Libyan civil war.

    After it became known that Egypt had been supplying ammunition and weapons to the insurgents "for a few days", the Russian Foreign Ministry had warned the United States of the ban on arms deliveries to Libya. The British government is said to take the position that the arms embargo applies to the insurgents as well as to the Libyan government.

    On March 29, 2011, US President Barack Obama took the view that the resolution allowed the supply of weapons to the insurgents. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was of the same opinion : Resolution 1973 expanded Resolution 1970 on this point. British Foreign Secretary William Hague supported Clinton's opinion. The French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé , however, said that a new UN resolution would be necessary for this. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen also said that arms deliveries to the insurgents were not covered by UN Resolution 1973. Opponents of arms deliveries claim that trainers would then have to be sent to Libya to train the insurgents on weapons. There are also concerns that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. Members of al-Qaeda and the Hezbollah movement may also have mixed with the rebels .

    Debate on no-fly zones in other Arab countries

    On March 19, opposition groups in Yemen turned to the international community with a cry for help. The UN Security Council should also take on political and moral responsibility in their country and initiate appropriate measures to “protect civilians”. On March 25th, Nicolas Sarkozy declared that France “from now on” will always react the same as in Libya: “Every Arab ruler must understand that the reaction of the international community and Europe will be the same every time from now on.” In March, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ruled out military intervention in Syria . The reason she gave was that the violence in Libya was much worse. Nobody in Syria is bombing their own cities.

    On April 10, 2011, the chairman of the Arab League, Amr Musa, called for a no-fly zone in the Gaza Strip to stop attacks by the Israeli air force .

    Further abstentions to the resolution by states

    In addition to the EU member Germany, all northern and central European EU member states ( Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , Poland , the Czech Republic , Slovakia , Hungary , Romania and Bulgaria ) as well as Finland , Sweden , Ireland and Austria did not take part in the military operation. For example, the EU member state of the Czech Republic abstained and did not send its own military support in the run-up to the military operation in Libya. A later involvement of these European states only took place with the transfer of command command to NATO .

    Criticism of the resolution

    Criticism from other states

    China

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement emphasizing its respect for Libya's sovereignty and independence. China rejects violence in international relations. It expressed "serious concerns" about the resolution and called for the crisis to be resolved through dialogue.

    Russia

    The Russian House of Representatives, the Duma , approved Russia's abstention in an official resolution. She accused the proponents of the no-fly zone of having thwarted Russian efforts to resolve the conflict in Libya peacefully through political means. President Dmitry Medvedev must now work in the Security Council to ensure that the military alliance limits its deployment in Libya to the achievement of humanitarian goals.

    A few days earlier, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described Resolution 1973 in a personal statement as "incomplete" and "harmful" and compared it with an invitation to crusade . It allows everyone to do anything, all measures against a sovereign state. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rejected the comparison with the crusade. The choice of words promotes the "struggle of civilizations".

    On August 12, 2011, Russia also agreed to the UN sanctions and participated in the entry ban for Muammar al Gaddafi and other people, the blocking of accounts of al-Gaddafi and members of his family and his management, a flight ban on Libyan machines and the possible control of suspicious Libyan ships on the high seas by Russian naval forces.

    India

    The Indian ambassador to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, criticized the far-reaching measures of the resolution without answering fundamental questions. There is insufficient information as a basis. It was feared that the territorial integrity and civilian population of Libya would be endangered .

    Brazil

    The UN Ambassador to Brazil, Maria Luisa Viotti , said it was not convinced that the threatened military measures would lead to an immediate end to violence and protection of civilians.

    Nicaragua

    The Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega denounced the Resolution 1973. The whole interest lies in the fact itself of oil to seize that democracy was only a pretext; "What they want is the oil of Libya and they argue among themselves who will arrive first to occupy Libya". According to Ortega, the UN has transformed itself into “an instrument of power, death and war”.

    international law

    Reinhard Merkel , Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Philosophy at the University of Hamburg, judges the resolution and the military intervention in Libya that invokes them to be contrary to international law. Military intervention in a civil war on foreign territory is prohibited by numerous international legal norms, for example in Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 or in the decision of the International Court of Justice in the dispute “ Nicaragua v. United States of America ”from 1986. External military intervention is only permitted in extreme cases, namely when genocide or a systematic crime against humanity must be prevented in accordance with Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court . Only then is humanitarian intervention legitimate.

    Christian Tomuschat , professor emeritus for public law, international and European law at the Humboldt University in Berlin, disagreed with Reinhard Merkel. Merkel's thought model relates to “the simple thought model from state to state.” However, this is not “about disputes in the classic intergovernmental system”, because the United Nations Security Council intervened.

    Gunnar Heinsohn , author of the first genocide encyclopedia, Lexikon der Genocide , describes the resolution as a “prime example” of one-sidedness. The resolution condemned the fact that the Libyan leadership was using mercenaries against the insurgents. However, the fact that black Africans were killed by the insurgents on the charge of being mercenaries was neither warned nor threatened with sanctions by the resolution. These massacres may be acts of genocide by the rebels against the black African minorities.

    The German political scientist August Pradetto calls the resolution “a confused, ill-considered authorization which, apart from the non-deployment of ground troops […], allows practically everything and leaves everything open - with hardly foreseeable consequences not only for the humanitarian situation in Libya and for developments in the Arab world Area and in North Africa, but also for Europe and the West. "

    In contrast, Peter Hilpold , professor of international law and European law at the University of Innsbruck, rates the resolution as "historic". It is "evidence of the willingness of the international community to stand up for compliance with basic human rights".

    According to Richard N. Haass , President of the Council on Foreign Relations , there was no convincing evidence that a major massacre or genocide was likely or imminent. With the "impending massacre", proponents of the resolution had argued for the fastest possible resolution on the no-fly zone to protect civilians.

    Dispute about Germany's abstention

    In his government statement before the German Bundestag on March 16, 2011, Federal Foreign Minister Westerwelle said that the no-fly zone raised more questions and problems than it promised to solve. It is a military intervention that is not even clear that it can be effective in a country like Libya. There is a risk that in the end it will be exactly the opposite of what it is intended to achieve politically. This is to be feared if “our actions” lead to more violence instead of freedom and peace. The result of this would not be a strengthening, but a weakening of the democratic movements in the region, because the consequences of a military operation would spread to the entire North African region and the entire Arab world. Nobody should indulge in the illusion that a no-fly zone is “just about putting up a traffic sign”. You don't want to and shouldn't become a “war party in a civil war ”. This could happen if the attacks on the ground continued despite the no-fly zone. Combating Gaddafi's tanks from the air and even sending ground troops could then become inevitable. One does not want to go on this “inclined plane”. The alternative to the no-fly zone, however, is "not inaction," but targeted sanctions to increase pressure on Gaddafi. In addition, “in the past few days” the first contacts were made with the National Transitional Council , in which Guido Westerwelle identified an important political contact.

    In the parliamentary groups of the German Bundestag there was broad support for the German abstention, even from the opposition. The decision also met with rejection; Rolf Mützenich suspected domestic political reasons due to the upcoming state elections , Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul described it as a “shame” that Germany evaded the principle of responsibility to protect and Omid Nouripour described the decision as a “disgrace”.

    With the exception of the Left Party , there were different positions within the parties . Above all, the lack of solidarity in the alliance and an isolated position were criticized.

    Bundestag President Norbert Lammert criticized that there was no direct connection between a yes to a no-fly zone and the participation of German soldiers. The foreign policy spokeswoman for the Greens in the Bundestag Kerstin Müller considered the abstention to be a "serious wrong decision".

    Some former officials sharply criticized the decision.

    The former German diplomat and international lawyer Wolfgang Ischinger could understand skepticism about the resolution, but was of the opinion that it would have been "perhaps [...] easier in terms of foreign policy", because many parts of the resolution would have been supported by the federal government.

    The German professor for international relations at the University of Zurich Dieter Ruloff said that Germany had stabbed the French and the British in the back and criticized politics as a "disaster" with "pirouettes [...] against Libya".

    The head of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations Ulrike Guérot saw the position in the context of a “German nationalism”. Germany has been "hardly interested in Europe for some time now".

    In parts of the German press, the abstention is criticized as an escape from responsibility and a loss of confidence in allied states is feared. Germany has never stood against all major Western partners.

    Opinions abroad

    The French press criticized the German decision heavily and cited French diplomats accordingly. The abstention is a "mistake with incalculable political costs".

    The French journalist and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy describes the German attitude as “a disaster, especially for the Libyans, but also for the Germans”. Germany has "thrown all the foundations of German foreign policy overboard since the end of the war" and will "still pay bitterly".

    Other European newspapers claim that the German position is unclear and that Germany has "gone to the sidelines".

    Abdel Hafiz Ghoga , spokesman for the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, expressed his disappointment to Welt am Sonntag about the German vote: "We will later remember who has stood by us from the international community and who has not."

    The MEP for KSČM and deputy chairman of the central committee of KSČM Jiří Maštálka expressed his satisfaction with the German position. As a possible reason for this, he cites the fact that Germany doesn't have an obvious colonial past like Britain and France. Therefore, according to Maštálka, German politicians are more cautious about the use of violence.

    See also

    literature

    • Tristan Barczak: War in the Service of Human Rights? The Resolution 1973/2011 of the UN Security Council (Libya) as the legitimation basis of a bellum iustum and expression of the responsibility to protect. In: Hamburger Rechtsnotizen (HRN), special issue Menschenrechte, 1/2012, pp. 9–15.

    Web links

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES 'NO-FLY ZONE' OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING 'ALL NECESSARY MEASURES' TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS. United Nations Security Council , accessed March 20, 2011 (press release).
    2. ↑ Security Council approves military operation against Libya. UN vote. Spiegel Online , accessed March 20, 2011 .
    3. ^ UN vote on flight ban in Libya on Thursday. Focus , accessed March 20, 2011 .
    4. ^ Richard Adams, David Batty: Libya resolution: UN security council air strikes vote - as it happened. The Guardian , accessed March 18, 2011 .
    5. ^ Libya: Arab League for no-fly zone. Arab world. In: faz.net. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 13, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    6. ^ Press statement by Chancellor Angela Merkel on current developments in Libya. Transcript of the press conference. In: bundesregierung.de. Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, March 18, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    7. ^ Chronology of Libya. Live ticker up to and including March 27th. In: n-tv.de. Archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; retrieved on March 31, 2011 : “The Libyan Foreign Minister Mussa Kussa announces an immediate ceasefire. Libya is ready for dialogue, says the minister. He condemns the decision of the UN Security Council to create a no-fly zone over Libya. "
    8. ↑ Gaddafi declares UN resolution to be invalid. Kleine Zeitung, accessed April 30, 2020 .
    9. ↑ Libya calls for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. News ticker. In: stern.de. March 20, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    10. ↑ Emmanuel Mulondo: Kutesa, AU blocked from entering Libya. In: Monitor Online. Daily Monitor, March 21, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 (English).
    11. ^ Communique of the African Union Ad Hoc Committee on Libya. In: mathaba.net. March 23, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 (English).
    12. ↑ World Security Council discusses the situation in Libya on Monday. In: de.rian.ru. RIA Novost, March 21, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    13. ^ Libya: UN rejects request for special session. News ticker. In: drs.ch. Swiss Radio DRS, March 22, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    14. ↑ No emergency meeting on Libya. Headlines. In: unric.org. United Nations Regional Information Center for Western Europe (UNRIC), archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    15. ↑ No emergency meeting: UN Security Council will not discuss the Libya conflict until Thursday. In: de.rian.ru. (RIA Novosti) March 22, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    16. ↑ Ban urges Russia to implement the UN resolution on Libya. News ticker. stern.de, March 22, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    17. ↑ Rice: Gadhafi will be held accountable. Interview. In: CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs. Cable News Network, March 18, 2011, archived from the original March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 (English).
    18. ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 24, 2011, p. 6
    19. ^ Charles Levinson and Matthew Rosenberg: Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels. In: online.wsj.com. Dow Jones & Company as of March 17, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 (English).
    20. ↑ Russia advises USA of a ban on arms deliveries to Libya. In: de.rian.ru. RIA Novosti, March 17, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 .
    21. ^ Marc A. Thiessen: Obama's disastrous UN resolution. In: Post Opinions. The Washington Post, March 21, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; accessed on March 31, 2011 (English).
    22. ↑ Arms to Libya rebels 'not ruled out'
    23. ^ Weapons for rebels: Rasmussen contradicts Clinton
    24. ↑ Civil war against Gaddafi: Possible arming of the rebels divides Western powers. In: spiegel.de. Spiegel Online, March 30, 2011, accessed March 31, 2011 .
    25. ^ "Yemen's opposition asks for international help" Die Welt online, accessed: March 20, 2011 7:33 pm
    26. ↑ http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.krieg-gegen-libyen-kampfansage-aus-paris.41a18210-023b-4fdd-9c01-91f5b1fa0703.html
    27. ↑ Syria: Clinton rules out military intervention
    28. ^ Arab League for a no-fly zone over Gaza
    29. ↑ The News: Support for Poland staying out of libya military campaign
    30. ^ The Prague Post: Military will stay out of Libyan operation
    31. ^ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 19, 2011, p. 5
    32. ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 24, 2011, p. 7
    33. ↑ Путин назвал операцию в Ливии бессовестным крестовым походом , Putin called the operation in Libya the unconscionable crusade , lenta.ru, (Russian)
    34. ^ Christian Esch: Libya divides Russia's leadership. Frankfurter Rundschau, March 22, 2011, accessed on March 26, 2011 .
    35. ↑ Russia agrees to sanctions against Libya. rian.ru, March 12, 2011, accessed August 14, 2011 .
    36. ^ Libya no-fly zone: India abstains from UN vote. CNN-IBN , March 18, 2011, accessed March 26, 2011 .
    37. ^ Ed Henry: Obama's potentially awkward Brazilian arrival. Cable News Network, March 18, 2011, accessed March 26, 2011 .
    38. ↑ Ortega pide a potencias atender llamado de Libia "a dialogar" ( Memento from September 22, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), El Nuevo Diario (Spanish)
    39. ↑ Reinhard Merkel in FAZ.NET on March 22, 2011: The military intervention against Gaddafi is illegitimate
    40. ^ Christian Tomuschat: When Gaddafi threatens bloody vengeance. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 23, 2011, accessed on March 23, 2011 .
    41. ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 22, 2011, p. 33
    42. ↑ August Pradetto: Interventionist Memory Disorder? Why the position of the Merkel government makes perfect sense. derStandard.at, March 28, 2011, accessed on March 28, 2011 .
    43. ↑ Peter Hilpold: A victory of humanity, which also demands Austria. In: Der Standard, 23.03.2011. derStandard.at, March 22, 2011, accessed on March 23, 2011 .
    44. ^ Richard Nathan Haass : What Next in Libya? The Huffington Post April 6, 2011, archived from the original April 20, 2011 ; accessed on April 20, 2011 (English).
    45. ↑ Government declaration by Federal Foreign Minister Westerwelle before the German Bundestag on the upheaval in the Arab world
    46. ↑ Andreas Rinke: To intervene or not? Why the federal government abstained on the Libya question. International politics. Born in 2011, July / August.
    47. ↑ SPD and Greens support Westerwelle. Die Zeit, March 18, 2011, accessed on March 24, 2011 .
    48. ^ Rolf Mützenich: Current developments in Libya (UN resolution). Speech to the German Bundestag. March 18, 2011, archived from the original on March 24, 2011 ; Retrieved March 24, 2011 .
    49. ^ A b Barbara Roth and Peter Philipp: The political collateral damage of the attacks on Libya. The Arab League is irritating, Germany isolates, NATO split. Deutschlandradio, March 21, 2011, archived from the original on March 26, 2011 ; Retrieved March 24, 2011 .
    50. ^ Karl Doemens and Steffen Hebestreit: Reluctant to answer. Frankfurter Rundschau, March 22, 2011, accessed on March 24, 2011 .
    51. ↑ Florian Gathmann, Veit Medick and Severin Weiland: Coalition of fighters. Spiegel Online, March 22, 2011, accessed March 26, 2011 .
    52. ↑ Svena Sinjen: The price of freedom. Case of Libya: What we need to rethink. In: IP Internationale Politik May / June 2011. German Society for Foreign Policy, April 11, 2011, archived from the original on April 14, 2011 ; Retrieved April 14, 2011 .
    53. ↑ http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Scharfe-Kritik-an-Libyen-Enthaltung-article2898526.html
    54. ↑ Linda Holzgreve: "Germany should have agreed". Dispute of the week about the Libya mission. taz.de, March 26, 2011, accessed on March 27, 2011 .
    55. ^ Joschka Fischer: German foreign policy - a farce. Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 22, 2011, accessed on March 24, 2011 .
    56. ↑ "Serious mistake of historical dimension". Criticism of German Libya policy. Spiegel Online, March 26, 2011, accessed March 26, 2011 .
    57. ↑ Matthias Schiermeyer: "Disagreement plays into Gaddafi's hands". Former NATO general in an interview. Stuttgarter Zeitung, March 23, 2011, accessed on March 24, 2011 .
    58. ↑ Consent would have been better. Ex-diplomat considers German doubts about possible military operations in Libya to be justified. In: Deutschlandradio Kultur. Deutschlandradio, March 19, 2011, archived from the original on March 31, 2011 ; Retrieved March 24, 2011 .
    59. ↑ Matthias Chapman: "The Germans' abstention will still be something to talk about". Der Bund, March 18, 2011, accessed on March 26, 2011 .
    60. ↑ Ulrike Guérot: Europe, just an illusion? With its selfishness, Germany is putting the EU at risk - what is missing is a new political and economic concept. of the Freitag Mediengesellschaft, March 29, 2011, accessed on March 29, 2011 .
    61. ↑ Germany expresses itself about responsibility. Libya press review. Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, March 18, 2011, accessed on December 6, 2017 .
    62. ^ Daniel Brössler : Germany on the side of dictators. Comment. Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 19, 2011, accessed on March 22, 2011 .
    63. ↑ Jörg Lau : Do it - without us! In: Die Zeit, No. 13 , March 24, 2011, accessed on March 24, 2011 .
    64. ^ Ralf Neukirch: Germany's new foreign policy. Westerwelle's absurd doctrine. Spiegel Online, March 29, 2011, accessed March 29, 2011 .
    65. ↑ Josef Joffe: A government without a keel and a compass. Zeit Online, March 25, 2011, accessed March 29, 2011 .
    66. ↑ Sharp criticism of Merkel's and Germany's attitude towards Libya. Focus Online, March 22, 2011, accessed March 22, 2011 .
    67. ↑ Michaela Wiegel: France is happy and angry. March 18, 2011, accessed March 4, 2015 .
    68. ↑ "Westerwelle is a disaster". Criticism of German Libya policy. Spiegel Online, March 27, 2011, archived from the original on April 6, 2011 ; Retrieved March 27, 2011 .
    69. ↑ Oliver Sallet: "We don't know what Germany stands for". Press review on the Libya position. Spiegel Online, March 21, 2011, accessed March 27, 2011 .
    70. ↑ Sharp criticism of abstaining from Libya. n-tv news television, March 20, 2011, accessed March 26, 2011 .
    71. ↑ Stop the killing !, A statement by Jiří Maštálka on the launching of combat operations against Libya. (English)