NATO’s and Russian involvement in the Libyan Crisis in a view of the Post-Cold War Realism vs. Humanitarianism

Abstract

The study investigates NATO’s and Russian involvement in the Libyan crisis by evaluating their actions from realist and humanitarian perspectives. There have been numerous studies portraying Middle East conflicts as great power confrontations and the mere pursuit of geopolitical interests. The study counters these explanations by analyzing the actions of the US, European powers, and Russia, and demonstrates how there were specific cases during which they acted in a humanitarian manner, while at other times they acted as realist powers. The study proves that when all three powers pursued humanitarian objectives, it led to a prompt collective action. However, when one or more of them pursued realist objectives, it led to a prolongation of the conflict. Nevertheless, when NATO powers (the US and European states) acted on humanitarian motives and Russia refrained from actively pursuing realist interests, collective action was still possible. Furthermore, even when all powers pursued realist motives, collective action was possible as those motives did not collide. The study implies that the application of R2P as a newly emerging form of international law might be possible elsewhere given that certain conditions are met.