DOWNLOAD PDF SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR MEMBER STATES TO USE FORCE

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : Security Council authorization for member states to use force Security Council authorization for member states to use force 05 Oct, FOREIGN & INTERNATIONAL LAW 0 have summoned forth innovative measures which have given practical expression to the Charter's concepts of how international peace and security might be maintained. The Preamble to the Charter declares that the "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest This resolution was adopted without vote by consensus but is considered an authoritative statement on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Charter. The Declaration reiterates article 2 4 and elaborates upon the occasions when the threat or use of force is prohibited but it does not address the question of whether force includes non-military force within the scope of the Charter. The Declaration also states that: Consequently, armed intervention and all against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. A number of developing nations have maintained that "force" includes non-military force but the developed states have resisted this view while conceding that non-military force of various kinds may be outlawed by other principles of international law. Collective action[ edit ] The Security Council is authorized to determine the existence of, and take action to address, any threat to international peace and security. In practice this power has been relatively little-used because of the presence of five veto-wielding permanent members with interests in a given issue. Typically measures short of armed force are taken before armed force, such as the imposition of sanctions. The first time the Security Council authorized the use of force was in to secure a North Korean withdrawal from South Korea. Although it was originally envisaged by the framers of the UN Charter that the UN would have its own designated forces to use for enforcement, the intervention was effectively controlled by forces under United States command. The Security Council did not authorize the use of significant armed force again until the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in After passing resolutions demanding a withdrawal, the Council passed Resolution, which authorized the use of force and requested all member states to provide the necessary support to a force operating in cooperation with Kuwait to ensure the withdrawal of Iraqi forces. This resolution was never revoked. On 8 November, the Security Council passed Resolution, by a unanimous 15â 0 vote: Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor. It has been argued that impliedly authorized UN member states to wage war against Iraq without any further decision by the UN Security Council. The representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security. Let me be equally clear in response There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue. Self-defence in international law Article Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Thus there is a right of self-defence under customary international law, as the International Court of Justice ICJ affirmed in the Nicaragua Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other Page 1

2 acts of self-defence are banned by article 2 4. The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack. The traditional customary rules on self-defence derive from an early diplomatic incident between the United States and the United Kingdom over the killing on some US citizens engaged in an attack on Canada, then a British colony. Caroline test There is a limited right of pre-emptive self-defence under customary law. Its continuing permissibility under the Charter hinges on the interpretation of article If it permits self-defence only when an armed attack has occurred, then there can be no right to pre-emptive self-defence. However, few observers really think that a state must wait for an armed attack to actually begin before taking action. A distinction can be drawn between "preventive" self-defence, which takes place when an attack is merely possible or foreseeable, and a permitted "interventionary" or "anticipatory" self-defence, which takes place when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable. The right to use interventionary, pre-emptive armed force in the face of an imminent attack has not been ruled out by the ICJ. But state practice and opinio juris overwhelmingly suggests that there is no right of preventive self-defence under international law. Protection of nationals[ edit ] The controversial claim to a right to use force in order to protect nationals abroad has been asserted by some States. The majority of States are doubtful about the existence of such a right. It is often claimed alongside other rights and reasons for using force. For example, the USA intervention in Grenada was widely considered to be in response to the rise to power of a socialist government. The danger that this posed to US nationals was doubtful and resulted in condemnation by the General Assembly. As with the above examples except the Entebbe incident, the protection of nationals is often used as an excuse for other political objectives. Humanitarian intervention In recent years several countries have begun to argue for the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization. In the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis in, the UK Foreign Secretary asserted that, "In international law, in exceptional circumstances and to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe, military action can be taken and it is on that legal basis that military action was taken. When NATO used military force against the Yugoslav state, it did not have authorization from the Security Council, but it was not condemned either. This is because veto-wielding countries held strong positions on both sides of the dispute. Many countries oppose such unauthorized humanitarian interventions on the formal ground that they are simply illegal, or on the practical ground that such a right would only be ever used against weaker states by stronger states. This was specifically shown in the Ministerial Declaration of G countries, in which states condemned such intervention. Proponents have typically resorted to a claim that the right has developed as a new part of customary law. The use of non-military force[ edit ] There has been widespread debate [6] about the significance of the phrasing of article 2 4, specifically about the use of the solitary word "force. Cyber-attacks, according to some frameworks such as the Schmitt analysis, could be seen in some cases as being a use of force. Although such measures may be banned by certain other provisions of the Charter, it does not seem possible to justify such a wide non-military interpretation of 2 4 in the light of subsequent state practice. It must also be noted[ tone ] that this article covers the threat of force, which is not permissible in a situation where the use of actual armed force would not be. Page 2

3 Chapter 2 : The Security Council and the Use of Force: Theory and Reality, a Need for a - Google Books Because the use of peacekeeping forces for enforcement purposes proved unworkable, and because the UN itself is not capable of extensive enforcement action, the Security Council has continued to authorize states to use force under Chapter VII, following the models of the operation against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm () and the use of. UNSC Resolution was passed unanimously on November 8,, to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, resolution, and resolution Blix noted that Iraq had failed cooperation in a number of areas, including the failure to provide safety to U-2 spy planes that inspectors hoped to use for aerial surveillance, refusal to let UN inspectors into several chemical, biological, and missile sites on the belief that they were engaging in espionage rather than disarmament, submitting 12,page arms declaration that it handed over in December which contained little more than old material previously submitted to inspectors, and failure to produce convincing evidence to the UN inspectors that it had unilaterally destroyed its anthrax stockpiles as required by resolution a decade before was passed in He concluded that it would take "but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The commission of inquiry of the government of the Netherlands found that the UN resolution of the s provided no authority for the invasion. Also, the commission concluded that the notion of " regime change " as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law. In an interview with newspaper de Volkskrant he argued that the cabinet did fully inform parliament and that there had never been any doubts. He rejected the conclusion that it took less than 45 minutes to decide to give political support to the United States. He also contested the conclusion that Prime Minister Balkenende failed to provide adequate leadership. In addition, he argued that no United Nations mandate was needed for the invasion of Iraq and remarked that there was no UN mandate when the Netherlands supported the US operations in Iraq. The letter goes on to state that "regime change per se is no justification for military action" and that "the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required. The letter also expresses doubts regarding the outcome of military action. Wilmshurst also insinuated that the English Attorney General Lord Goldsmith also believed the war was illegal, but changed his opinion several weeks before the invasion. Statements issued later suggested that this was a personal view and not a formal view of the coalition government. With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following World War II, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25,, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. We note with "deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression". Page 3

4 Chapter 3 : UN Security Council unanimously approves 'all necessary measures' against Isil in Syria - Tele The Security Council has not again authorized member states to use force against an aggressor state in the same way as it did against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, but it has authorized action for a variety of other purposes. Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Article 43 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Article 45 In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee. Article 46 Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees. Article 48 The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members. Article 49 The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council. Article 50 If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems. Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence Page 4

5 if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Page 5

6 Chapter 4 : Oxford Public International Law: 7 Security Council authorization of member states to use force Besides the authorization of the use of force by the Security Council as indicated above, Member States can use force when exercising their right to self-defence according to Article 51 of the. Membership and Election 1. Where can I find information on the membership of the Security Council? The current and past membership of the Security Council since can be found in the Members section. How are the non-permanent members selected? Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members out of 10 in total for a two-year term. In accordance with the General Assembly resolution XVIII of 17 December, the 10 non-permanent seats are distributed on a regional basis as follows: Where can I find the Charter and the provisional rules of procedure? Where can I find the meeting records, resolutions and other official documents of the Security Council? The full text of meeting records of the Security Council from onwards can be found in the Meetings section. The full text of all resolutions of the Security Council since can be accessed in the Resolutions section. The official edited versions of the resolutions, presidential statements and other decisions of the Council are available in the annually published Volumes of Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council, which are also accessible from the Official Document System ODS. Where can I find the annual reports of the Security Council? Functions and Powers of the Security Council 6. What is the function of the Security Council? Are all Security Council resolutions binding on all Member States? How this issue has been addressed in the Council can be found inthe Repertoire see: Conduct of Business 8. How is the work of the Security Council organized? Article 28 of the United Nations Charter states that the Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Rule 1 of the Provisional Rules of Procedures states that the meetings of the Security Council shall be held at the call of the President at any time he deems necessary, but that the interval between meetings shall not exceed fourteen days. For more information on these provisions and the practice of the Security Council, see the Provisional Rules and Procedure. What is the difference between open and closed meetings and consultations? Both open and closed meetings are formal meetings of the Security Council. Consultations are informal meetings of the Security Council members and are not covered in the Repertoire. The annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly provides dates of consultations on different agenda items from recent years. What are subsidiary organs? Subsidiary organs are bodies that are created by the Security Council under Article 29 of the United Nations Charter to assist the Council in its work. They can range from sanctions committees and Working Groups consisting of representatives of all fifteen Security Council Members to tribunals or peacekeeping missions with thousands of troops. They are all considered subsidiary organs but are led by different United Nations entities and have different types of mandates. In addition, peacekeeping operations, as opposed to other missions, have a military or international police presence in the field. Peacebuilding and political offices are generally overseen by the Department of Political Affairs. These missions are part of a continuum of United Nations peace operations working in different stages of the conflict cycle. How does the Security Council determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression? Article 39 of the United Nations Charter states that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The range of situations which the Security Council determined as giving rise to threats to the peace includes country-specific situations such as inter- or intra-state conflicts or internal conflicts with a regional or sub-regional dimension. Furthermore, the Security Council has identified potential or generic threats as threats to international peace and security, such as terrorist acts, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation and illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons. The context in which the Security Council determined a situation as giving rise to breaches of the peace is narrower. The Security Council has determined a breach of the peace only in situations involving the use of armed force. Only in a very few cases in its history has the Security Council ever determined the existence of an act of aggression by one State against another. For more information on sanctions measures, visit the Page 6

7 sanctions committees website. What kind of measures involving the use of armed force has the Security Council imposed in the past? What are the rules for the use of force by States? Otherwise, Article 2 4 of the Charter states that all Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Admission of New Members to the United Nations Security Council Reform What is the process for Security Council reform? According to Article of the United Nations Charter, the Charter can be amended by a General Assembly decision approved by two thirds of General Assembly membership and ratified by two thirds of Member States, including the permanent members of the Security Council. As changing the composition of the Security Council can be done only by amending the Charter, Article applies to the issue of Security Council reform. Since, discussions are held in the framework of inter-governmental negotiations. About the Repertoire Where does the material in the Repertoire come from? All of the material in the Repertoire is drawn from the official documents of the Security Council. What is a case study? In the Repertoire, a case study brings together excerpts from meetings, resolutions and other decisions and official reports to illustrate how a certain Article or rule has been addressed in the Security Council. A case study on a rule of procedure might illustrate cases where that rule has been applied, or instances which were exceptional or unusual. A case study on an Article of the Charter might highlight a discussion on how that Article was interpreted, and show any relevant decisions that followed from the discussion. What are implicit and explicit references? An explicit reference is a direct mention of an Article of the Charter of the United Nations or a provisional rule of procedure. An implicit reference is an instance where a speaker or text has used language that is similar or identical to that found in an Article or rule of procedure, or that invokes the same principles. For example, any discussion of the principle of self-determination of peoples can be understood as an implicit reference to Article 1 2 of the Charter. The Repertoire uses both implicit and explicit references to show how different aspects of Security Council practice can be understood. Until the volume, the double asterisk was used to indicate that there is no material for inclusion under certain parts and subsections. In general, this website does not provide links to sections under which no material has been included. Where is the veto featured in the Repertoire? For more information, see also Voting System and Records. In addition, information is available on specific themes of Security Council practice, such as: Page 7

8 Chapter 5 : Use of force by states - Wikipedia Blokker, N; Abstract. This article examines the question whether it is within the Security Council's powers to adopt resolutions which authorize member states to use force. It therefore welcomed the offer by certain member states to establish a temporary and limited multinational protection force to facilitate the safe and prompt delivery of humanitarian assistance, and to help create a secure environment for the missions of international organizations in Albania. It authorized member states participating in the multinational protection force to conduct the operation in a neutral and impartial way. This multinational force was to be deployed until replaced as soon as possible by a UN peacekeeping operation and six months later it handed over to UNTAET. In the Supplement to the Agenda for Peace he acknowledged that the Security Council did not then have the capacity to deploy, command, and control an enforcement action. Although it was desirable that in the long term the UN should be able to conduct such operations, it would be folly to undertake them at a time when the UN was hard pressed even to carry out its peacekeeping commitments. However, he spoke of the dangers to the UN if it seemed to be sidelined; its stature and credibility might be adversely affected. Operation Desert Storm had given rise to concern among states about the need to limit the discretion of member states authorized to use force and to a determination not to repeat what came to be seen as flaws in the mandate of the operations. Thus, at the time of the operation there was concern about the lack of UN control over the decision as to when to start the operation and over the conduct of the campaign, about the wide and unclear mandate and about the lack of a time limit on the coalition action. Yemen said that the resolution was vague and not related to any specific article of Chapter VII. The Security Council would not have any control over the forces and command was not with the UN. Cuba argued that the text of Resolution violated the Charter in that it authorized member states to use military force in total disregard of Charter procedures. States which abstained on, or opposed, Security Council resolutions authorizing new member state forces did so, not because of doubt about the constitutionality of such operations, but because they had concerns about the particular operation. China most often expressed such concerns. Member states were required to act in close coordination with the Secretary-General; in the former Yugoslavia this was interpreted to require the consent of the Secretary-General to any use of force by NATO in order to guarantee coordination and to avoid danger to the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. The member state operations in Rwanda, Haiti and Albania, and all subsequent operations except for KFOR, 29 were subject to fixed time limits and all had to be renewed by the Security Council. Also in all these operations the states concerned were required to report to the Council on a regular basis on the implementation of the resolution. There is also a danger that interested states operating under UN authorization would gain legitimacy to further their own interests. The early tradition of not using the forces of permanent members of the Security Council or of those states with geographical or historical interests in the state concerned has been further circumvented through this type of operation. There was some suspicion of the motives of these states. In Rwanda Operation Turquoise was criticized for providing a safe haven for the perpetrators of genocide. These were, however, all temporary, limited forces operating with the consent of the host states even where this was not expressly indicated in the relevant resolutions. It is not clear that the use of the EU to lead an operation instead of a single member state will necessarily meet this concern as to ulterior motives. There were newspaper reports that the use of the EU in the DRC was interpreted by some as evidence of foreign state support for the incumbent President in the elections. Chapter 6 : Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia i contents 1 introduction 1 subject and purpose of the thesis 1 sources of law 2 the use of force by states 2 structure 4 2 powers of the security council 5. Page 8

9 Chapter 7 : Dorf on Law: When Does the Security Council Authorize Armed Force? The Security Council's Authorization of the threat or use of force, and it is unquestionable that the force proâ 4 of the Charter holds for all Member States. Chapter 8 : Oxford Public International Law: 8 Security Council authorization for member states to use forc Selected Security Council Resolutions: View All: 3 March S/RES/ This resolution established a travel ban on some individuals already subject to sanctions, added new names to the list of individuals and entities subject to assets freeze, expanded the scope of the embargo on proliferation sensitive items by adding dual-use items and authorised states to inspect Iranian cargoes to and. Chapter 9 : UN Documents for Authorisations to Use Force another calls for reforming the law under which the Council authorizes the use of force; and the third calls for bypassing the Council in cases where states that want to use force do not get the authorization they seek. Page 9