Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 366–385 | Cite as

Capacity, legitimacy or hegemony? A multi-tier explanation for NATO’s involvement in the Libya crisis

  • Yf ReykersEmail author


Although numerous regional (security) organisations have implemented UNSC-authorised military operations, we do not yet know which considerations prevail in the decision to work through a particular organisation. This article introduces a framework consisting of a capacity, legitimacy and hegemony logic for explaining the selection of a regional organisation. The article takes a rational-institutionalist approach, suggesting that analysis should primarily focus on the cost-benefit analyses of states. It applies the framework to NATO’s involvement in the Libya crisis (2011). Using insights from policy documents and 31 elite interviews, it shows that thoroughly explaining NATO’s involvement is only possible by taking into account all three logics.


UN Security Council NATO regional organisations rational-institutionalism Libya 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kenneth W. Abbott and Duncan Snidal, ‘Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1998): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paul D. Williams, ‘Regional and Global Legitimacy Dynamics: The United Nations and Regional Arrangements’, in Legitimating International Organizations, ed Dominik Zaum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 60.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sten Rynning, ‘Coalitions, Institutions and Big Tents: The New Strategic Reality of Armed Intervention’, International Affairs 89, no. 1 (2013): 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waheguru Pal Sidhu, ‘Chapter 12: Regional Groups and Alliances’, in The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations, ed. Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 217–29Google Scholar
  5. 4a.
    Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 4b.
    Rodrigo Tavares, Regional Security: The Capacity of International Organizations (London: Routledge, Global Institutions Series, 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 4c.
    Michael F. Harsch, The Power of Dependence: NATO-UN Cooperation in Crisis Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 5.
    Katharina Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement: The Politics of International Legitimacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Williams, ‘Regional and Global Legitimacy Dynamics’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 6.
    Michael Akehurst, ‘Enforcement Action by Regional Agencies, with Special Reference to the Organization of American States’, BYIL 47 (1968): 175Google Scholar
  10. 6a.
    Virginia P. Fortna, Regional Organizations and Peacekeeping (The Henry L. Stimson Center Occasional Paper, 1993).Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Paul F. Diehl and Alexandru Balas, Peace Operations, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014), 79.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, ‘Who’s Keeping the Peace? Regionalization and Contemporary Peace Operations’, International Security 29, no. 4 (2005): 157–95.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement, 7–8.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    Gary Wilson, ‘UN Authorized Enforcement: Regional Organizations versus “Coalitions of the Willing”’, International Peacekeeping 10, no. 2 (2003): 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 11.
    While much scholarly attention has been devoted to theorising which regional organisations fall under Chapter VIII, it has been noted that this decision is in practice within the UNSC’s discretionary power. NATO’s position towards the UN Charter is often seen as problematic, as it does not conceive itself as a Chapter VIII organization. However, this does not mean that it cannot be treated as a regional organisation when analysing its involvement in UNSC-authorised interventions. Wilson points out that: from the UN perspective a broad view of regional arrangements is permitted, which allows the Security Council to confer military enforcement powers on organizations regardless of whether they deem themselves regional arrangements within the meaning of Chapter VIII or not. (Wilson 2003, 96)Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    See, for example, Tavares, Regional Security; Sidhu, ‘Chapter 12’; Bellamy and Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    See, for example, Tavares, Regional Security; Van Langenhove, L., Felício, T., & Abass, A., ‘The United Nations and Regional Organisations for Peace: Tracking a Slippery Partnership’, in The United Nations and the Regions: Third World Report on Regional Integration, United Nations University Series on Regionalism 3, ed. P. Lombaerde, F. Baert, and T. Felício (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2012), 91–106. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2751-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 14.
    See, for example, Bruno Simma, NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects’, European Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (1999): 1-22; Suyash Paliwal, ‘The Primacy of Regional Organizations in International Peacekeeping: The African Example’, The Virginia Journal of International Law 51, no. 1 (2010): 186–230Google Scholar
  19. 14a.
    Erika De Wet, ‘The Relationship between the Security Council and Regional Organizations during Enforcement Action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter’, Nordic Journal of International Law 71 (2002): 1–37.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    See, for example, Hikaru Yamashita, ‘Impartial Use of Force in United Nations Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping 15, no. 5 (2012): 615–30Google Scholar
  21. 15a.
    Herbert Howe, ‘Lessons of Liberia: ECOMOG and Regional Peacekeeping’, International Security 21, no. 3 (2012): 145–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 16.
    See, for example, Geir Ulfstein and Hege Fosund Christiansen, ‘The Legality of the NATO Bombin in Libya’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62, no. 1 (2013): 159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 17.
    See, for example, Jolyon Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya: A Paradigm Shift in French, European and Transatlantic Security Arrangements?’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 12, no. 4 (2014): 405–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 17a.
    Tom Colley, ‘What’s in it for Us’, The RUSI Journal 160, no. 4 (2015): 60–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 17b.
    Madelene Lindström and Kristina Zetterlund, Setting the Stage for the Military Intervention in Libya: Decisions Made and Their Implications for the EUand NATO (Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Defence Report, 2012)Google Scholar
  26. 17c.
    Dag Henriksen and Ann Karin Larssen, Political Rationale and International Consequences of the War in Libya (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 17d.
    Yanan Song, ‘The US Commitment to NATO in the post-Colc War Period - A Case Study on Libya’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 14, no. 1 (2016): 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 18.
    See, for example, Henriksen and Larssen, Political Rationale and International Consequences of the War.Google Scholar
  29. 19.
    Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization 53, no. 4 (Autumn, 1999): 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 20.
    Inis Claude, ‘Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations’, International Organization 20, no. 3 (1966): 367–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 21a.
    David D. Caron, ‘The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority of the Security Council’, The American Journal of International Law, 87, no. 4 (1993): 552–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 21b.
    Michael N. Barnett, ‘Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy and the United Nations, World Politics’, 49 (1997), 526–51Google Scholar
  33. 21c.
    Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council’, Global Governance, 8, no. 1 (2002): 35–51Google Scholar
  34. 21d.
    Erik Voeten, ‘The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force’, International Organization, 59, no. 3 (2005): 527–57; Williams, ‘Regional and Global Legitimacy Dynamics’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 21.
    Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement, 278.Google Scholar
  36. 22.
    See, for example, Mark A. Pollack, ‘Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community’, International Organization 51, no. 1: 99–134.Google Scholar
  37. 23.
    Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement, 60.Google Scholar
  38. 24.
    Jennifer Welsh and Dominik Zaum, ‘Legitimation and the UN Security Council’, in ed. Dominik Zaum, Legitimating International Organizations, 67.Google Scholar
  39. 25.
    Reykers, Y, & Smeets, N, ‘Losing Control: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Russia in the United Nations Security Council’s Decision-making Towards the Libya Crisis’. East European Politics 31, no. 4 (2015): 369–87. doi:10.1080/21599165.2015.1070729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 26.
    Abbott and Snidal, ‘Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations’, 5.Google Scholar
  41. 27.
  42. 28.
  43. 29.
    Ibid., 13–14.Google Scholar
  44. 30.
    Darren G. Hawkins et al. eds, Delegation and Agency in International Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 31.
    Tavares, Regional Security; Bellamy and Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping.Google Scholar
  46. 32.
    Abbott and Snidal, ‘Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations’, 15.Google Scholar
  47. 33.
  48. 34.
    Ibid.; Jochen Prantl, ‘Informal Groups of States and the UN Security Council’, International Organization 59, no. 3 (2005): 559–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 35.
    Claude, ‘Collective Legitimization’.Google Scholar
  50. 36.
    Ibid.; Caron, ‘The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority’; Hurd, ‘Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life’; Voeten, ‘The Political Origins’; Williams, ‘Regional and Global Legitimacy Dynamics’.Google Scholar
  51. 37.
    Tavares, Regional Security; Bellamy and Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping; Diehl and Balas (2014).Google Scholar
  52. 38.
    Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement, 20.Google Scholar
  53. 39.
    Williams, ‘Regional and Global Legitimacy Dynamics’, 43.Google Scholar
  54. 40.
    Harsch, The Power of Dependence, 25.Google Scholar
  55. 41.
    Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement, 24.Google Scholar
  56. 42.
    Robert Gilpin, War and Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 43.
    Charles P. Kindleberger, ‘Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation’, International Organization 40, no. 4 (1986), 841–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 43.
    Michael Webb and Stephen D. Krasner, ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment’, Review of International Studies 15, no. 2 (1989): 183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 44.
    Harsch, The Power of Dependence, 31.Google Scholar
  60. 45.
    Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 32.Google Scholar
  61. 46.
    Akehurst, ‘Enforcement Action’; Fortna, Regional Organizations and Peacekeeping; Bellamy and Williams, Understanding Peacekeeping.Google Scholar
  62. 47.
    Andrew Kydd, ‘In America We (Used to) Trust: U.S. Hegemony and Global Cooperation’, Political Science Quarterly 120, no. 4 (2005): 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 48.
    See, for example, Ellen Hallams and Benjamin Schreer, ‘Towards a “post-American” Alliance? NATO Burden-sharing after Libya’, International Affairs 88, no. 2 (2012): 313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 49.
    Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya’, 411.Google Scholar
  65. 50.
    For facilitating analysis, the empirical material has been coded along the lines of the three logics by making use of NVivo software.Google Scholar
  66. 51.
    Following NATO regulations, most of the interviews were not recorded. Interviews have been anonymized at the request of the respondents. For an overview, see the Appendix.Google Scholar
  67. 52.
    S/RES/1973.Google Scholar
  68. 53.
    S/2011/137.Google Scholar
  69. 54.
    In addition to China and Russia, also Brazil, India, and - remarkably - Germany abstained from voting on Resolution 1973.Google Scholar
  70. 55.
    One way to explain the absence of an explicit reference to an enforcing agent is that strong disagreements still existed on whether NATO should get involved. Another way relates to the interplay between the UNSC’s permanent members. Although the Arab League’s support for an intervention was an important factor for China and Russia in their decision not to veto the Resolution, not mentioning a particular enforcing agent is also a way to avoid a Russian or Chinese veto (Reykers and Smeets, ‘Losing Control’).Google Scholar
  71. 56.
    Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Vincent Pouliot, ‘Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya’, European Journal of International Relations, 20, no. 4 (2014): 889–911; Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya’; Colley, ‘What’s in it for Us’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 57.
    Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in Practice’; Lindström and Zetterlund, Setting the Stage.Google Scholar
  73. 58.
    C. Savage and M. Landler, ‘White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation’, The New York Times, June 15, 2011, 16.Google Scholar
  74. 59.
    In addition to France’s initial preference for keeping NATO out, literature also indicates that Germany, Poland and Turkey were the NATO allies that most strongly opposed NATO-involvement. See also Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya’, 407.Google Scholar
  75. 60.
    The political guidance of the military campaign, however, remained outside of NATO’s structures. It was the Libya Contact Group which became responsible for the overarching political strategy. This decision was largely taken at French initiative, as they preferred keeping NATO as far as possible from political leadership. See, for example, Lindström and Zetterlund, Setting the Stage, 18.Google Scholar
  76. 61.
    Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, Press Conference, NATO Headquarters (24 October 2011).Google Scholar
  77. 62.
    NATO, OUP Final Mission Stats, 2 November 2011.Google Scholar
  78. 63.
    The eight countries conducting air strikes were France, UK, USA, Denmark, Canada, Italy, Norway and Belgium.Google Scholar
  79. 64.
    Ivo H. Daalder and James G. Stavridis, ‘NATO’s Victory in Libya: The Right Way to Run an Intervention’, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2012), 2–7.Google Scholar
  80. 65.
    Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya’, 411.Google Scholar
  81. 66.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen, ‘The Indispensable Enabler: NATO’s Strategic Value in High-intensity Operations Is Far Greater Than You Think’, in Strategy in NATO, ed Liselotte Odgaard (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), 67.Google Scholar
  82. 67.
    Hallams and Schreer, ‘Towards a “post-American”Alliance?’.Google Scholar
  83. 68.
    True financial burden-sharing is here understood as taking place when the costs of an operation are borne by all 28 NATO member states.Google Scholar
  84. 69.
    Robert H. Dorff, ‘US National Security Strategy and NATO’, in Liselotte Odgaard (ed), Strategy in NATO, 51.Google Scholar
  85. 70.
    These costs were estimated at respectively 5.4 million euros/month and 800,000 euros/month (NATO, OUP Final Mission Stats, 2 November 2011).Google Scholar
  86. 71.
    Rynning, ‘Coalitions, Institutions and Big Tents’, 62.Google Scholar
  87. 72.
    Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in Practice’, 905; Howorth, ‘“Opération Harmattan” in Libya’.Google Scholar
  88. 73.
    Lindström and Zetterlund, Setting the Stage, 22.Google Scholar
  89. 74.
    Example, Yf Reykers, ‘No Supply without Demand: Explaining the Absence of the EU Battlegroups in Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic’, European Security 25, no. 3 (2016): 346–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 75.
    Alister Miskimmon, ‘German Foreign Policy and the Libya Crisis’, German Politics, 21, no. 4 (2012): 392–410; Howorth, J. “Opération Harmattan” in Libya: a paradigm shift in French, European and transatlantic security arrangements?, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 12, no. 4, 405–417. doi:10.1080/14794012.2014.962738; Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in Practice’, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 76.
    See note 67 above.Google Scholar
  92. 77.
    Jakobsen, ‘The Indispensable Enabler’, 71.Google Scholar
  93. 78.
    However, the UNSC does not have an international staff such as that of NATO and the UN Secretariat does not play a role in decision-making on military interventions. International staff preferences in this case therefore primarily involve those of NATO’s international staff.Google Scholar
  94. 79.
    David S. Yost, ‘NATO’s Evolving Purposes and the Next Strategic Concept’, International Affairs 82, no. 2 (2010): 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 80.
    Lindström and Zetterlund, Setting the Stage, 38.Google Scholar
  96. 81.
    H. Cooper and S.L. Myer, ‘Obama Takes Hard Line with Libya after Shift by Clinton’, The New York Times, March 21, 2011, 18.Google Scholar
  97. 82.
    S/RES/1973.Google Scholar
  98. 83.
    Another consideration behind the ‘leading from behind’ strategy was Obama’s urge to avoid a vote in Congress, as the USA War Powers Resolution obliges the President to seek Congressional approval when military action exceeds the period of 60 days. Therefore, the Administration argued that its forces were not involved in ‘sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces’ (Source: C. Savage and M. Landler, ‘White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation’, The New York Times, June 15, 2011, 16).Google Scholar
  99. 84.
    Pernille Rieker, ‘The French Return to NATO: Reintegration in Practice, not in Principle’, European Security 22, no. 3 (2013): 376–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 85.
    See note 80 above.Google Scholar
  101. 86.
    Abbott and Snidal, ‘Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations’, 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven International and European Studies (LINES) InstituteUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations