“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
At face value the bolded portion is meant to preclude an occupation, but in reality no government (Western at least) want a costly occupation of a state with little economic (little oil) or strategic value (not the Suez Canal, not likely to destabilized a strategic neighbor). The non-occupation clause is (imo) for the benefit of intervening states who fears the implied responsibility to clean up the mess (militia violents, chaos etc) in Libya after their intervention. The clause allow intervening states to point at it and say to Libyans (and to the world) suffering from the chaos after the inevitable collapse of Gaddafi “sorry i feel sorry for your pain, but i cant help you, UNSC wont let me :(“. Not saying this because i have a better proposal. Just saying.