...So, in reality, judging on this confused article, it is a truism to state that the “Law is an ass”, and lags in total confusion behind realistic objectives of dealing with life’s emergencies, (still and again)...

the author says ..
""Humanitarian intervention" refers to the threat or use of force by a State or States against another State for the purposes of preventing or stopping the latter State from committing extensive and grave violations of humanitarian law and human rights law."

But when you go to the link, you find the author has changed the wording, ever so casually from the original
"Humanitarian intervention refers to the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens"

So we get "humanitarian law and human rights law" inserted .. with no reference to what these actually are or whether in fact they exist .. I suspect the author is so internalized in her own mind that this is the case and it is true and just, that no further explanation is necessary.

Justifying attacking Col. Gaddafi is one thing, but if you are trying to make the case that this is "special" therefore OK, then what of Iran attacking its own citizens or China?

President GW Bush was honest in his attack on Iraq, because they were dangerous, attacked their own citizens and were a threat to the world, should have been just based on "humanitarian law and human rights law" and I'm sure no one in the west would have batted an eye .. surely?

So clearly the little bit'a spin imposed would have done the trick .. I see bugger all difference in the way Saddam and Gaddafi interacted with their people and the world .. it's interesting that now it's worthy of liberal spin though.

BTW .. what's the exit plan? That was SUCH a big deal in the Iraq, and is in Afghanistan, why is it not here? To me there's no plan at all beyond a few tactical targets.

The USA has slaughtered millions and Australia hundreds of thousands under the euphemism abortion.

Would Arab nations, in coalition with, say, Brazil, Indonesia, Argentina and the Philippines, where abortion is an illegal crime against humanity, be justified in taking military action to stop the slaughter, to protect the innocent?

Given the "there's this, but then again, there's that" approach of the article, it is not surprising that no clear opinion shines through.

But that is the stark reality: we have yet to work out a framework in which the conflicting objectives of non-interference and humanitarian assistance can be properly and consistently weighed.

The UN should of course be the forum for these debates, and the source of their resolution. This is only a pious hope at this point in history, given the massive political and economic divisions that are represented in its chamber. But at least we appear to be making baby-steps in the general direction of kinda-sorta consensus, before leaping into the fray.

One - surprising to me - omission from Ms Joseph's list of precedents was Rwanda. The UN mandate on that occasion allowed the creation of a "safe zone" for Hutu refugees, but prohibited intervention in the genocide itself. The result of such dithering caused the project to fail, spectacularly...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/714025.stm

...and force Kofi Annan to admit, ten years later, that "the international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm

So we all await the results of this latest intervention with interest. Will it be viewed in history as a humanitarian exercise that prevented massive bloodshed, or simply as the adventures of outsiders, being complicit in an internal political revolution? Will the conclusion be to go in early, boots and all, or to hang back and hope?

That this dilemma in the Middle East comes so soon after the Iraq adventure, where lessons are still being learned, and Afghanistan, where it appears they never will be, is unfortunate. Thus, determining a more consistent global approach that simultaneously discourages tyranny, while practising non-intervention, will be a work-in-progress for several more decades, I suspect.

This article is regrettably wrong on so many points it would take another article to point out its manifest errors. Resolution 1973 authorized Member States to take "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan civilian population. Under international law all measures includes a requirement that peaceful means be tried first. The team appointed by the UN Secretary General for that purpose was not even allowed to report before the attack began.
The UN Charter allows an armed attack in only two circumstances: self defence (which manifestly does not apply) and in accordance with a Security council resolution that is itself in accordance with the Charter. Resolution 1973 does not meet that requirement.
Both Chapter VI and Chapter VIII of the Charter mandate resolution by peaceful means. Only when that has failed can resort be made to Chapter VIII. That Chapter however does not authorise humanitarian interventions of the type purportedly invoked with Libya.
The whole exercise is rampant with hypocrisy and Australia is not exempt from that charge. There was no "intervention" when Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians in 2008; there is a conspicuous silence on the government killing of its citizens in Yeman and Bahrain. Regime change is not authorised by Resolution 1973 yet that has been clearly stated by Obama among others as a prime objective of the attacks. Even the Arab League whose membership largely consists of sundry despots, dictators and corrupt monarchies has had second thoughts as the motives of the imperial powers in attacking an oil rich Muslim nation for the umpteenth time in the past decade become clearer.
The blunt fact is that the law is regarded as an occasional inconvenience for the US and its allies which they ignore because the experience of the post Nurenburg era is that they can do so with impunity.

After Rwanda and the million or so that died in the "internal conflict" it has become clear that in order to save people one can no longer afford the luxury of not being involved, even if that means military action.

The fact that the Libyan people have armed themselves simply muddies the water, but does not mean that they do no deserve protection from the genocide that Gadaffi would almost certainly inflict.

If one is going to look for clear cut moral guidelines there won't be any. The easy solution is to sit back and watch the slaughter from afar as someone else's problem.