Description

This con case argues that humanitarian claims must be judged by real-world outcomes, not intentions. Built around Aslı Bâli’s responsible humanitarianism framework, the case shows that military regime change often worsens the very human rights crises it claims to solve. Using Libya as a central example, it explains how intervention can escalate civil war, increase civilian suffering, collapse state institutions, spread weapons, and destabilize entire regions. This case gives con a powerful, judge-friendly argument: if the goal is protecting people, diplomacy, multilateral assistance, and humanitarian support are more responsible than regime-changing force.