Status and Intervention in Libya, 2011–2012

Courtney J. Fung
{"title":"Status and Intervention in Libya, 2011–2012","authors":"Courtney J. Fung","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198842743.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 analyzes China’s response to the 2011 Libya crisis. In the space of three weeks, China would vote on two landmark resolutions at the UN Security Council: a yes vote for a unanimous referral of a sitting head of state to the International Criminal Court, and shortly after, an abstention vote permitting sanctions and a “no-fly zone plus” over Libyan territory. China’s votes were largely a surprise—many analyses had predicted that China and Russia would cast tandem vetoes. Status is key to understanding China’s response. China was particularly sensitized to status due to a well-publicized speech by Colonel Gaddafi citing his domestic repression as a parallel to the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989. Against this status trigger, the great powers (the “P3” of the United States, the United Kingdom, France) came out forcefully for intervention, and representatives of China’s Global South peer group—the African Union, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Gulf Cooperation Council—were among the first to call for a strong response. China was able to reconcile its concerns regarding an International Criminal Court referral of the Libya case as China prioritized status; China was socially isolated from its great powers peers at the UN Security Council and from its Global South peers in regional organizations. When the Global South reference group disagreed about the call for a no-fly zone, China viewed the next most feasible option as an abstention vote, so as to offend no peer.","PeriodicalId":262415,"journal":{"name":"China and Intervention at the UN Security Council","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China and Intervention at the UN Security Council","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842743.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 5 analyzes China’s response to the 2011 Libya crisis. In the space of three weeks, China would vote on two landmark resolutions at the UN Security Council: a yes vote for a unanimous referral of a sitting head of state to the International Criminal Court, and shortly after, an abstention vote permitting sanctions and a “no-fly zone plus” over Libyan territory. China’s votes were largely a surprise—many analyses had predicted that China and Russia would cast tandem vetoes. Status is key to understanding China’s response. China was particularly sensitized to status due to a well-publicized speech by Colonel Gaddafi citing his domestic repression as a parallel to the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989. Against this status trigger, the great powers (the “P3” of the United States, the United Kingdom, France) came out forcefully for intervention, and representatives of China’s Global South peer group—the African Union, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Gulf Cooperation Council—were among the first to call for a strong response. China was able to reconcile its concerns regarding an International Criminal Court referral of the Libya case as China prioritized status; China was socially isolated from its great powers peers at the UN Security Council and from its Global South peers in regional organizations. When the Global South reference group disagreed about the call for a no-fly zone, China viewed the next most feasible option as an abstention vote, so as to offend no peer.
利比亚现状与干预,2011-2012
第五章分析了中国对2011年利比亚危机的应对。在三周的时间里,中国将在联合国安理会对两项具有里程碑意义的决议进行投票:一项是对将现任国家元首提交国际刑事法院(International Criminal Court)的一致动议投赞成票,另一项是在不久之后投弃权票,允许对利比亚实施制裁并在其领土上设立“禁飞区”。中国的投票在很大程度上是一个意外——许多分析人士曾预测中国和俄罗斯将共同投否决票。地位是理解中国反应的关键。中国对地位问题特别敏感,因为卡扎菲上校在一次广为宣传的演讲中称,他的国内镇压与1989年天安门事件类似。针对这一地位触发,大国(美国、英国、法国的“P3”)出面强力干预,而中国的全球南方同行——非洲联盟、阿拉伯国家联盟、伊斯兰合作组织和海湾合作委员会的代表则率先呼吁做出强烈回应。中国能够调和其对国际刑事法院将利比亚案件作为中国优先地位移交的关切;中国在社会上与联合国安理会的大国同行以及在地区组织中的全球南方同行隔绝。当全球南方参考小组不同意设立禁飞区的呼吁时,中国认为下一个最可行的选择是投弃权票,这样就不会冒犯其他国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信