Resolution 530 (1983

1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 838-840
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Central America ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Northern Border ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The One

The Security Council,Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nicaragua,Having also heard the statements of various States Members of the United Nations in the course of the debate,Deeply concerned, on the one hand, at the situation prevailing on and insid the northern border of Nicaragua and, on the other hand, at the consequent dange of a military confrontation between Honduras and Nicaragua, which could further aggravate the existing crisis.situation in Central America,Recalling all the relevant principles of the Charter of the United Nations,, particularly the obligation of States to settle their disputes exclusively by peaceful means, not to resort to the threat or use of force and to respect the self-determination of peoples and the sovereign independence of all States,Noting the widespread desire expressed by the States concerned to achieve solutions to the differences between them,

The United Nations and Decolonization: the Case of Southern Yemen

1972 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
King-yuh Chang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Special Committee ◽  
Colonial Power ◽  
New Members ◽  
The United Nations

Since 1962 the United Nations, mainly through the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Special Committee of 24), has attempted to effect political change in dependent territories in accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples. While the organization usually demands that the inhabitants be given a chance to determine their political future and to choose their government, its primary objective has been somewhat more specific. Spurred on by the influx of new members that occurred around the start of the decade, most of them former colonies, the UN has pressured for the complete displacement of alien rule in dependent territories and has tended to accept whatever type of government emerges as long as it is indigenous, that is, not controlled by a colonial power or European settlers.

Autointerpretation, Competence, and the Continuing Validity of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The United Nations

With the failure of the United Nations to control the use of force by states to the degree that many had wished for, the attention of many commenators shifted to what was hoped would be more fertile ground—the protection of human rights, self-determination, and other areas in which the organization might play a supranational role. In discussing the development of the supranational aspect of the organization, attention is invariably directed to Article 2(7) of the Charter which is, of course, the current symbol of sovereignty. Since most visionaries are frustrated by the concept of sovereignty, it is not surprising that this article has received little sympathy on the part of many who are more concerned with ends than means. Yet it is doubtful whether the concept may be dismissed summarily and, since it plays such a key role in so many of the allegedly developing fields of international law, one would do well to consider how Article 2(7), properly interpreted, affects the legal assumption on which supranationalism is based.

The Lawfulness of Military Assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Norton Moore
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Viet Nam ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Collective Defense ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The major thrust of contemporary international law is to restrict coercion in international relations as a modality of major change. The use of force as an instrument of change has always been wasteful, disruptive, and tragic. In the nuclear era the renunciation of force as a method of settlement of disputes has become an imperative. These necessities have resulted in a widely accepted distinction between lawful and unlawful uses of force in international relations which is embodied in the United Nations Charter. Force pursuant to the right of individual or collective defense or expressly authorized by the centralized peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations is lawful. Essentially all other major uses of force in international relations are unlawful. These fundamental proscriptions are designed to protect self-determination of the peoples of the world and to achieve at least minimum world public order. As such, they reflect the basic expectations of the international community. Since they are aimed at prohibiting the unilateral use of force as a modality of major change, they have consistently authorized the use of force in individual or collective defense at least “until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This defensive right is, at least at the present level of effectiveness of international peacekeeping machinery, necessary to the prevention of unilateral use of force as an instrument of change. The fundamental distinction between unlawful unilateral force to achieve major change and lawful force in individual or collective defense against such coercion is the structural steel for assessment of the lawfulness of the present military assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam.

scholarly journals The persistence of colonial constitutionalism in British Overseas Territories

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
HAKEEM O YUSUF ◽  
TANZIL CHOWDHURY
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Colonial Governance ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
The Uk

Abstract:This article argues that despite the UK Government’s exaltations of self-determination of its Overseas Territories, provisions of colonial governance persist in their constitutions. Further, it posits that such illustrations begin to answer the broader question of whether British Overseas Territories (BOTs) are modern day colonies. Such claims are not without merit given that 10 out of the 14 BOTS are still considered Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Nations and have remained the target of decolonisation efforts. Drawing insights from post-colonial legal theory, this article develops the idea of the persistence of colonial constitutionalism to interrogate whether structural continuities exist in the governance of the UK’s British Overseas Territories. The analysis begins to unravel the fraught tensions between constitutional provisions that advance greater self-determination and constitutional provisions that maintain the persistence of colonial governance. Ultimately, the post-colonial approach foregrounds a thoroughgoing analysis on whether BOTs are colonies and how such an exegesis would require particular nuance that is largely missing in current institutional and non-institutional articulations of, as well as representations on, the issue.

Reflections on the Indonesian Case

1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupert Emerson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
General Assertion ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter

The tangled affairs of Indonesia, twice thrust upon the Security Council, have served as an admirable touchstone of the principles, purposes, and effectiveness of the United Nations as well as of the policies of some of its leading members. Fundamental principles of the new postwar order were at stake. The Atlantic Charter had affirmed the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they would live, and the collapse of empires before the Japanese onslaught led to the widespread conclusion that the old colonial system was dead. These doctrines found sober and modified expression not only in Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, but also in the more general assertion of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and of the universal application of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The rights of dependent peoples, the validity of the doctrine of self-determination, and the possibilities for peaceful change all hovered about the Security Council chamber in the course of the debates on the two Indonesian cases.

scholarly journals The Virtues of Bright Lines: Self-Determination, Secession, and External Intervention

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad R. Roth
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
External Intervention

AbstractThe United Nations Charter-based international order sought to reconcile the self-determination of peoples with the inviolability of state boundaries by presuming sovereign states to be manifestations of the self-determination of the entirety of their territorial populations. This presumption, albeit nationally rebuttable, traditionally prevailed even where states could only by a feat of ideological imagination be characterized as “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction.” But the international reaction to fragmentation in the former Yugoslavia—regarding both the initial “dissolution” and the subsequent struggle over Kosovo—called into question the rigid doctrines of the past and opened the door to secessionist claims theretofore dismissible as beyond the pale. Although no vindication of Russian intervention in Ukraine can properly be drawn from the Yugoslav cases, the Ukrainian crises help to surface the hidden dangers of an emerging jurisprudence that would allow previously inadmissible considerations—whether ethnic, historical, constitutional, or “democratic”—to compromise the territorial inviolability norm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document