Syria is not Libya. The resolution on Syria is not like the ones on Libya.

One of the main arguments for China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and others that oppose the adoption of the UNSC resolution dealing with Syria is that it will open the same door that S/RES/1970 and S/RES/1973 did when dealing with Libya. As careful readers of this blog might have concluded these resolutions are similarities, but are very far apart when it comes to actual mechanisms envisioned to change the behavior of their targets. There are clear similarities between the two resolutions on Libya and the proposed draft on Syria, but at the same time there are substantive differences that make the resolution completely different in character and severity of condemnation.


Divergences

One of the most important points of divergence is on the authority that the resolutions rely on, in the case of Libya the actions are taken under Chapter VII, in both cases. In the draft regarding the situation in Syria the actions are taken under the regular authority of the Council without special mention to Chapter VII, indicating the lack of intention to use force. That alone makes the proposed resolution weaker than the Libyan ones, since acting under Chapter VII has become a de facto necessity if the Council is to authorize sanctions, embargos or usage of force. Without the utilization of Chapter VII, the draft that deals with Syria does not promote any type of sanctions, does not promote an arms embargo, does not freeze assets and does not ban any individual from flight internationally. All these four elements are present in one way or the other in either S/RES/1970 or S/RES/1973, but are notoriously absent in the draft that addresses the situation in Syria. The absence of any of these forms of international sanctions make the draft resolution on Syria even weaker than simply to non-invocation of the Chapter VII.

Besides the element of acting under Chapter VII, recognizing the situation as a threat to international peace and security is an important step, nearly a requirement for the Council to take effective action on the issue. In the case of Libya there is recognition that the situation is a threat to international peace and security in both resolutions, where in the draft on the Syrian situation, there is a statement that it represents a risk to international peace and security, a clear step before a full-fledged threat which would require more forceful action on the part of the Council. Another big point of departure between the UN actions in both cases is the choice made by the Council to refer the case of Libya to the International Criminal Court, whereas the draft resolution on Syria is mute on this aspect. Another point worth mentioning is that on both issues the Council relies on documents made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but on the case of Libya they expand to other sources as well, whereas in the Syrian resolution it is restricted to the OIC.

Similarities

When it comes to the similarities among the threes resolutions, one specially interesting and relevant is how in both cases they rely on a form of responsibility to protect to justify the actions to be taken. It is interesting enough to point out that both the forceful actions and the weak condemnation come from the same principle but applied differently. This expression of the responsibility to protect that each country has towards its citizens, comes with a consideration in both cases that the local authorities ought to take into consideration the legitimate aspirations of its people and condemning the use of violence in the situations. In both cases, the resolutions do not make any effort to define what would be those legitimate aspirations. Accompanying the elements of legitimate aspirations, there are calls for respect for freedoms, such as the freedom of assembly and freedom for the media, which have be hampered in both countries. All these elements make the Council state on the resolutions and on the draft is that the situation on the ground maybe be a crime to humanity, showing the level of importance that they attribute to the situations.

Both resolutions works from the basis provided by respective Human Rights Council resolutions that work with violations of human rights on the ground. Aside from this, the resolutions call for reports to be submitted to the Security Council by the Secretary-General on the progress of the implementation of these resolutions. The work from the Council in both these situations also express a strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of both Syria and Libya.

In balance

When comparing the texts of the draft resolution on Syria with the previous works of the Council on Libya it is clear that the wording utilized as well as the mechanisms adopted in the Syrian case is far weaker than the ones utilized throughout the Libyan situation. The response to the different situations that they have judged worth to be put in the box of responsibility to protect are completely divergent. This uneven application of the principle leads to question what are the criteria that prompt action from the international community, a question that the Council will have to face sooner or later.