Institutionalising Morality: The UN Security Council and the Fundamental Norms of the International Legal Order

2018 ◽  
pp. 99-125
Author(s):  
Dennis R. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
International Legal Order

The Challenge of ‘Foreign Fighters’ to the Liberal International Legal Order

2019 ◽  
pp. 40-58
Author(s):  
Sandra Krähenmann
Keyword(s):  
Communication Technology ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Modern Information ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Comprehensive Framework ◽  
Foreign Fighters

This chapter proposes an analysis of Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014) as an illustration of how states used the institutional structure set up by the liberal international legal order in order to provide a comprehensive framework for addressing the mobilization and recruitment of so-called foreign fighters. In the second part of the chapter, two particularly emblematic policies tailored towards addressing ‘foreign fighter’ mobilization will be analysed. First, against the background of the ‘foreign fighter’ phenomenon, initiatives to prevent violent extremism and radicalization have gained traction with a particular focus on the abuse of modern information and communication technology to incite support for terrorism and spread violent extremism is highlighted. Second, states increasingly resort to revocation of citizenship as a part of their counterterrorism arsenal.

4 Legal Acts, 4.5 Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, 21 September 2005, [2005] ECR II-3649 (Kadi I CFI); Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission , Court of Justice of the EC [2008] ECR I-6351 (Kadi I ECJ); Case T-85/09, Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-5177 (Kadi II GCEU); Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Commission and United Kingdom v Kadi , Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (Kadi II CJEU)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzanakopoulos Antonios
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This casenote reviews and discusses the series of decisions regarding sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, as implemented in the EU legal order. In this series of cases, the EU Courts at different times take different positions regarding the relationship of the UN and the EU legal order, as well as their power to review EU acts implementing Security Council sanctions and (indirectly) the sanctions themselves. The series of cases marks a watershed moment in UN Security Council targeted sanctions, forcing EU member states to disobey them and eventually leading to the creation and strengthening of an internal UN review mechanism, the Office of the Ombudsperson.

UN Sanctions and Judicial Review

2007 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
Community Legal Order

AbstractThis article analyses the way UN sanctions are implemented in the European legal order. As a basis for the analysis, the European Court of First Instance's (CFI) rulings in the Yusuf/Kadi/Ayadi 1 cases and the European Court of Human Rights's (ECrtHR) judgment in the Bosphorus 2 case are applied. The main critique of the author is that the CFI misconstrued the hierarchy of norms within the Community legal order when it argued that the EC/EU (European Community/European Union) is bound by UN Security Council resolutions in the same way as the Member States. Moreover, the conclusion drawn from this by the CFI that UN law enjoys supremacy over primary EC law is also rejected by the author. Finally, it appears that European courts are unwilling to provide judicial review against UN sanctions, which results in a lacuna concerning fundamental rights protection for affected individuals and organisations.

The Hariri and Saddam tribunals: two expressions of tortured justice

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-611
Author(s):  
Daoud Khairallah
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Level ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Saddam Hussein ◽  
International Legal Order

This article establishes that politically motivated pursuit of criminal justice at the international level undermines trust in the international legal order and inflicts multilateral harm that goes far beyond the facts subject to judicial process. The author analyzes the pursuit of justice in relation to two major events: the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, and the international crimes that Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, was accused of committing. In the first example, the author examines the role of the UN Security Council, including reference to the efforts of the US, relative to the investigation and establishment of a special tribunal for Lebanon; and in the second, the role of the US in the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. Both cases demonstrate that justice is the main victim of politicizing the judicial process.

Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Constitution of the United Nations

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTHEW HAPPOLD
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Past ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Do So

In Resolution 1373 the Security Council laid down a series of general and abstract rules binding on all UN member states. In doing so, the Council purported to legislate. This article discusses whether it is entitled to do so. In the light of the Charter and the past practice of United Nations organs, it argues that the Council can only exercise its Chapter VII powers in response to specific situations or conduct. In enacting Resolution 1373 the Council acted ultra vires. The article looks at the circumstances in which such an extension of the Security Council's powers might be acceptable, but concludes that unilateral attempts by the Council to legislate would be destructive of the international legal order.

scholarly journals Evolution ‎of Asset-Freezing through the UN Security Council

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Gasem M.S Al-Own ◽  
Maysa Said Bydoon
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security

<p>The UN Security Council (UNSC) carries out its task in maintaing and restoring international peace and security. However, it is argued that the Security Council evolved new ways to maintain international peace and security that differ from what was originally intended when the UN Charter adopted in 1945. The Development of Asset-freezing could be considered as an example of this evolution. This Article analyses the historic evolution ‎of asset-freezing in the UN legal order by the UNSC to identify the changes in the nature of asset-freezing. This article argues that asset-freezing has been designed as a means to put pressure on states to abide by the orders of the UNSC for the purpose of maintaining international collective security.</p>

16. Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Access To Resources ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

An international legal order must have rules in regard to the settlement of disputes. These rules are particularly necessary in an international community where States are not equal in terms of diplomatic power, access to weapons or access to resources, and where there is the potential for massive harm to people and to territory. This chapter discusses the general obligation on States; non-judicial settlement procedures; arbitration; specific international tribunals; the International Court of Justice and its interaction with the Security Council.

Humanitarian Intervention without the Security Council: From San Francisco to Kosovo – and Beyond

2001 ◽  
Vol 70 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 121-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Suitable Framework

AbstractAgainst the background of NATO's war over Kosovo in 1999, this article deals with legal and legal-political aspects of humanitarian intervention without authorisation from the UN Security Council – an issue elucidating the foundations of international law and the role of state practice in its dynamic development. It is argued that unauthorised humanitarian intervention has no legal basis in current international law: It is incompatible with Article 2(4) of the Charter, the defence of a state of necessity is not applicable and no doctrine of unauthorised humanitarian intervention has been established under customary international law. From a legal-political perspective, the crucial question is whether to develop a doctrine of humanitarian intervention without the Security Council if necessary, or stick to the existing legal order, maintaining the Security Council as the sole authoritative organ for decision-making on humanitarian intervention, while working to make it more effective. The author favours the latter alternative. However, in the short term, an ad hoc ``emergency exit'' may be needed. The special circumstances precluding wrongfulness, such as state necessity, it is argued, are not a conceptually suitable framework for justifying humanitarian intervention. But unauthorised humanitarian intervention could be undertaken ad hoc, as a deviation from international law justified solely on moral grounds. This leaves open an option for intervention in extreme cases of human suffering, but at the same time avoids jeopardising the existing, hard-earned, international legal order and the central role of the Security Council. NATO's war over Kosovo, it is argued, was such a case of ad hoc intervention on moral grounds. The article assesses the legal-political consequences of this approach in the aftermath of NATO's bombing campaign.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document