Libyans who work in Tunisia are served with champagne to celebrate the UN resolution. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP
Even if it came late, resolution 1973 marks a significant moment in repairing the deep damage caused by the war in Iraq, and the failure then of the UN security council to authorise the use of force, either explicitly or, in the view of just about every international lawyer I know, at all.
This time the council has come together to signal its disgust at large-scale attacks on civilians and the transformation of political processes in north Africa. It is one of those rare occasions in which the use of force has been authorised under chapter VII.
Significantly, not one of the 15 members opposed action, a factor that is connected to recent events in Tunisia and Egypt and last weekend's remarkable call for action by the Arab League, and the particular authority of its secretary-general, Amr Moussa.
Resolution 1973 has two important objectives.
The first is to protect civilians, by authorising all UN members to "take all necessary measures … to protect civilians … under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
The second is to imposes an effective no fly zone in the form of a ban on all flights in Libya's airspace, except for those with an exclusively humanitarian purpose, to help protect civilians.
Only time will tell whether the resolution catalyses actions by Arab and western powers that are necessary to achieve the real but unstated objective of some of its sponsors, namely the early removal from power of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his clan.
The protracted lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan weigh heavily, and the language of the resolution appears to allow more than only defensive or reactive military measures.
The authorisation of "all necessary measures" is broad and appears to allow the targeting of Gaddafi and others who act to put civilians "under threat of attack", words that go beyond the need to establish a connection with actual attacks.
And the language precluding any "foreign occupation force" is also ambiguous. It might be interpreted to allow the arming of rebel groups and – to the extent it is requested by those groups – feet on the ground in the form of support that falls short of being "an occupation force".
The real intent of the resolution – and its effect - will be tested by Gaddafi's announcement of a ceasefire, assuming it to be genuine. Whilst welcome if acted upon for bringing respite to some civilians, it could impose upon others the prospect of a stalemate and many more years under the Gaddafis. The ball will then be in the court of the rebels, who are unlikely to accept this latest offer.
I strongly welcome the resolution but inevitably it gives rise to challenging questions. If Libya today, why not Bahrain tomorrow? At what point do such attacks on civilians cross a threshold of unacceptability? What if the attacks are led not by Gaddafi but by an old and trusted ally?
These serious, legitimate questions will have to be answered, now that a new door of international action has been opened. But for now urgent action is needed to stop the attacks on Libyan civilians, so they are given the space to put in place a government they want and that meets their aspirations in a challenging world.
Philippe Sands QC is Professor of Law at University College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers
This time the council has come together to signal its disgust at large-scale attacks on civilians and the transformation of political processes in north Africa. It is one of those rare occasions in which the use of force has been authorised under chapter VII.
Significantly, not one of the 15 members opposed action, a factor that is connected to recent events in Tunisia and Egypt and last weekend's remarkable call for action by the Arab League, and the particular authority of its secretary-general, Amr Moussa.
Resolution 1973 has two important objectives.
The first is to protect civilians, by authorising all UN members to "take all necessary measures … to protect civilians … under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
The second is to imposes an effective no fly zone in the form of a ban on all flights in Libya's airspace, except for those with an exclusively humanitarian purpose, to help protect civilians.
Only time will tell whether the resolution catalyses actions by Arab and western powers that are necessary to achieve the real but unstated objective of some of its sponsors, namely the early removal from power of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his clan.
The protracted lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan weigh heavily, and the language of the resolution appears to allow more than only defensive or reactive military measures.
The authorisation of "all necessary measures" is broad and appears to allow the targeting of Gaddafi and others who act to put civilians "under threat of attack", words that go beyond the need to establish a connection with actual attacks.
And the language precluding any "foreign occupation force" is also ambiguous. It might be interpreted to allow the arming of rebel groups and – to the extent it is requested by those groups – feet on the ground in the form of support that falls short of being "an occupation force".
The real intent of the resolution – and its effect - will be tested by Gaddafi's announcement of a ceasefire, assuming it to be genuine. Whilst welcome if acted upon for bringing respite to some civilians, it could impose upon others the prospect of a stalemate and many more years under the Gaddafis. The ball will then be in the court of the rebels, who are unlikely to accept this latest offer.
I strongly welcome the resolution but inevitably it gives rise to challenging questions. If Libya today, why not Bahrain tomorrow? At what point do such attacks on civilians cross a threshold of unacceptability? What if the attacks are led not by Gaddafi but by an old and trusted ally?
These serious, legitimate questions will have to be answered, now that a new door of international action has been opened. But for now urgent action is needed to stop the attacks on Libyan civilians, so they are given the space to put in place a government they want and that meets their aspirations in a challenging world.
Philippe Sands QC is Professor of Law at University College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers
