The logic of collective security and the eligibility of nato led coalition forces to intervene in internal affairs of states: the paradox of regime change in Libya

The main thrust of this study is to explore the practice of collective security; focusing on how such enforcement action violates state's sovereignty. It nonetheless, examines the place of collective security in internal affairs of states, the appropriate enforcement authority; the limitations or constraints, and the roles played by the NATO led coalition forces in Libya in 2011. “Conspiracy Theory” was adopted in discussing the modern practice of collective security, particularly in the case of Libya. The study relied on secondary data and applied content analysis to evaluate the data and make inferences. It discovers that Libya does not belong to NATO or attacked its signatory member or committed aggression against any sovereign state. To that extent, it argues that NATO lacks eligibility to wade into Libyan crisis. It contends that the collective security taken in Libya was an act of conspiracy hatched by top NATO member states that collaborated with allies to significantly aid and abet the rebel partners to achieve the goals of the conspiracy - Libyan regime change, which negates the intendment of UNSC Res. 1973. The study, recommends that collective security in internal affairs of states should not be availed to rebel or insurgent groups who use propaganda to woo support against the state's authority. It should not aim to achieve pecuniary self interests of participating nations at the expense of the state's interests.