Abstract The article analyses the Arab Spring protests that started in Tunisia in 2010 and spread into more than thirteen other countries across two continents. Of the more than thirteen countries affected by the Arab Spring, only four countries are analysed: Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya. The principal objectives of this article are threefold. Firstly, the article critically explores the reasons for the uprisings in the four countries that form part of this analysis. Secondly, the article analyses the respective governments’ responses to the protests in their domains. Thirdly, the article analyses the so-called international community's responses to the cases discussed. Qualitative methodology, which seeks to interpret the reasons behind the actions and responses by the respective actors during the Libyan invasion, is used. A decolonial interpretation of the events in Libya suggests a global coloniality that sought to entrap Libya and, indeed, all of the Global South. The findings are that the Libyan invasion was a targeted and selective application of legal instruments such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, quasi-insulated from legal reproach because the so- called intervention was a UN-gazetted operation. As such, the UN continues to be used as a vehicle for the powerful located in the Global North to punish the weak in the Global South.

中文翻译：

---

全球殖民的不对称、差异、不一致和双重标准：2011年利比亚案例

摘要 本文分析了 2010 年在突尼斯开始并蔓延到横跨两大洲的 13 个以上其他国家的阿拉伯之春抗议活动。在受阿拉伯之春影响的超过 13 个国家中，仅分析了四个国家：突尼斯、埃及、苏丹和利比亚。本文的主要目标有三个。首先，本文批判性地探讨了构成本分析一部分的四个国家发生起义的原因。其次，本文分析了各国政府对其领域内抗议活动的反应。第三，文章分析了所谓国际社会对所讨论案件的反应。使用了定性方法，旨在解释在利比亚入侵期间各行为体的行动和反应背后的原因。对利比亚事件的非殖民主义解释表明，全球殖民主义试图诱捕利比亚，实际上是整个南半球。调查结果表明，对利比亚的入侵是对法律文书的有针对性和选择性的应用，例如保护责任 (R2P) 原则，因为所谓的干预是联合国公布的行动，因此几乎不受法律指责。因此，联合国继续被用作位于全球北方的强者惩罚全球南方弱者的工具。几乎不受法律责备，因为所谓的干预是联合国公布的行动。因此，联合国继续被用作位于全球北方的强者惩罚全球南方弱者的工具。几乎不受法律责备，因为所谓的干预是联合国公布的行动。因此，联合国继续被用作位于全球北方的强者惩罚全球南方弱者的工具。