The theoretical tenets of poststructuralism pose significant challenges to traditional ethical thinking, suggesting the need for an ethics sensitive to openness and difference. Postmodern and `post-development` criticisms have cast the validity of international development into doubt, both as a discipline and a practice. Analysts such as Escobar, Sachs, and Prakash have focused on the problems of development theory and failures in development practice to argue that development is a discourse of power that privileges Western politico-economic models, often excluding and repressing people at the grass roots in the Global south. Consequently it has failed to deliver an improved standard of living to the people it is supposed to be helping and should be abandoned.
ombing governmental forces which resulted in a military victory for the NATO coalition. The extent to which this is seen as an appropriate use of R2P however is debated. A realist concept that whilst a primary objective of the mandate in Libya was ‘civilian protection’, this changed over the course of the conflict towards regime change, a goal which is unlikely to have had the uncontested support of the Security Council. (Abomo 2018, p244) The opposition to this is put forward by Amstutz, who argues that the principal goal of the intervention was to “prevent the slaughter of civilians” in support of the R2P doctrine, as a result of this aim and the military intervention to achieve it, “the downfall of a lunatic,” was necessary.(Amstutz 2018, p161) This is an argument I would tend to concur with as, in my view, the Libyan government failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens, and whilst regime change came as a result of necessary humanitarian intervention, the principal goal was the protection of human rights. A further argument which is made against the intervention in Libya is one which is also levelled against the concept of the R2P doctrine itself, whether it indeed unacceptably breaches a level of sovereignty. In a polemic article regarding Libyan intervention, Keeler argues “it seemed clear that for many politicians, humanitarian intervention has become no more than an inappropriate violation of national sovereignty.” (Keeler, 2011) However, the question still remains at what point does national sovereignty have to be breached to protect human rights? In this case, and in accordance with R2P it was at the point that the Libyan state had failed in its obligation to protect its citizens forcing the intervention of the International community. Collins indeed argues that “not since Rwanda had a regime signalled its intent to commit crimes against humanity so clearly.” (Collins, 2013, p302) The Libyan case could, therefore, be seen as an exceptional circumstance of extreme importance for the UN to avoid a situation which ominously resembled Rwanda. R2P, therefore, was implemented decisively to achieve its principle aim, alleviating the Libyan human rights crisis. Whilst, due to the hostilities of international politics, criticism of policy and action was inevitable, I would consider the implementation of R2P in Libya as both a positive attempt to learn from the past and a necessary breach of sovereignty.
A second case in which it is clear the UN and the international community saw it fit to implement R2P is that of the Cote D’Ivoire after its presidential elections in November 2010. This occurred after opposing candidates Gbagbo and Ouattara declared themselves, individually, winners of a shambolic election process resulting in both men establishing government in the same city of Abidjan. (ICRtoP, n.d) The ensuing violence between the forces of both Ouattara and Gbagbo created a humanitarian crisis, which was reported by the UN to have killed over 10
