The UN Security Council and resource-related armed conflicts

Author(s):  
Daniella Dam-de Jong
Napredak ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Vladislav Jovanović

The paper recapitulates the process of the destruction of the Yugoslav state (SFRY and FRY). Special attention is given to the key factor in that process, the will of the West, embodied in the USA and the EC (EU), for whom the continued existence of Yugoslavia was no longer of geopolitical interest. The conferences on Yugoslavia, organized in Brussels and The Hague, were supposed to serve to legitimize this goal: the disappearance of Yugoslavia. The author points out that when the West did not manage to achieve its goal with political solutions, it involved NATO, through the aggression in 1999. Previously, Serbia's legitimate opposition to terrorist acts by the KLA on its territory, as an internal issue par excellence, was declared a threat to "peace and security in the world", and the UN Security Council took it as a permanent topic of its sessions. There had been secessionist uprisings and armed conflicts in UN member states before, as there are today, but the Security Council never before dared to violate the article of the UN Charter that states that these questions are the exclusive competence of the member state concerned. An exception was made only in the case of Serbia, although the defense against KLA terrorism was legal and limited to the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, i.e., the Yugoslav state border was never crossed. The false claim of William Walker, the head of the OSCE mission in Kosovo and Metohija, concerning the massacre in Racak, was the cause of the war of aggression against the FRY. By illegally naming the protectorate of Kosovo as the so-called state of the Albanian national minority, the West took this as the final stroke in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and Serbia, thus ignoring the story of the phoenix rising from its ashes.


Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox

This chapter examines the debate concerning a state’s intervention in internal armed conflicts based on invitation, either from the government or from a rebel group fighting against the government. It looks at the issues that arise from intervention by invitation, particularly those relating to the territorial integrity of the state, the status of the actors involved, the nature of the consent, and implications for international law in general and for politics and human rights in particular. The chapter first considers the traditional view of intervention by invitation and the recent challenges to that view. It then discusses the negative equality principle as it applies to intervention in civil wars, as well as the link between intervention by invitation and democratic legitimacy. It also analyses the position of the UN Security Council on intervention by invitation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Marina Lebedeva ◽  
◽  
Marina Ustinova ◽  

By the end of XX–the beginning of XXI century the importance of humanitarian and social issues in the world has sharply increased. Humanitarian and social means began to be intensively included in military and economic actions and play a significant independent role. As a result, there was an increase in the importance of “soft security” aspects, and an expansion of this field. This has affected the UN Security Council, which began to pay more attention to humanitarian and social issues, which was demonstrated with the statistical method. The range of humanitarian issues discussed by the Security Council and the list of actors sponsoring resolutions on humanitarian issues has expanded. In the late 1990s–early 2000s the Council begins to consider large amount of humanitarian issues: security issues of individuals in armed conflicts (civilians, children, women, UN and humanitarian personnel); civilian aspects of conflict management and peacebuilding; and separate issues of “soft security” (humanitarian assistance and such “soft threats” to security as HIV/AIDS epidemics, food crises and climate change). In addition, the Council also addresses human rights violations. The promotion of humanitarian issues in the Council on separate occasions was facilitated by high-ranking officials who put a premium on humanitarian issues; various UN bodies and organizations, mainly with humanitarian mandates; some non-permanent members of the Security Council who wanted to leave their mark in the Council’s history; various NGOs. In turn, some countries opposed the adoption of measures that they consider to be within the internal competence of their states. At the same time, the expansion of humanitarian and social problems in the world poses a dilemma for the Security Council: whether to include the entire range of these issues on the agenda, or it is beyond the scope of the Council’s mandate. There is no definite answer here. On the one hand, the world is moving along the path of strengthening humanitarian problems and its ever-greater involvement in security issues. On the other hand, an expanded interpretation of security can impede the work of the Council.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-250
Author(s):  
Francesca Capone

Terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. The newest challenge posed by this threat is represented by the phenomenon of “foreign terrorist fighters”. Current estimates place the number of foreigners who have joined the ongoing armed conflicts in the Middle East between 20,000 and 30,000. How many of these foreign fighters also fall within the definition of foreign terrorist fighters (i.e. those travelling abroad with a “terrorist” intent) provided by UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014) is very difficult to assess. In primis because the resolution refers to “terrorists”, “terrorist acts”, and “terrorist training” without actually defining “terrorism” and thus leaving to each Member State the task to determine the breadth and the contours of this concept. Secondly because the text lacks legal certainty with regard to many other crucial aspects, e.g., the relationship between counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law, the interpretation of the term “State of residence”, and the risk of abuse of refugee status. These shortcomings not only jeopardize the ability to implement a uniform approach, but they also increase the likelihood of fostering abusive responses. This article argues that Resolution 2178 has not been adopted in a legal vacuum, on the contrary it extensively builds on the anti-terrorism framework established by previous Security Council resolutions and thus it inherits and exacerbates many old and unresolved issues. Ultimately, the present article seeks to determine to what degree the new set of binding obligations placed upon Member States to thwart the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters is effective and it discusses the extent to which it could enhance or hinder counter-terrorism’s compliance with international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law.


1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (287) ◽  
pp. 183-186
Author(s):  
Aristidis S. Calogeropoulos-Stratis

Recently, a number of armed conflicts have broken out in Europe or not far away: armed conflicts between States — the Gulf War, for example, authorized by UN Security Council resolution 678 — or wars of national liberation, such as the armed conflict in Yugoslavia or the revolt in Kurdistan. Whether or not the use of force was legitimate in each of these situations, and even though the classic notion of a “just war” no longer exists, all parties to any armed conflict have a moral, legal and humanitarian obligation to abide by the laws and customs of war in the conduct of hostilities and indeed throughout the entire conflict.


Author(s):  
Erin Pobjie

In Resolution 2532 (2020), the UN Security Council characterised the COVID-19 pandemic as an endangerment to international peace and security and, for the first time, demanded a general ceasefire and humanitarian pause in armed conflicts across the globe. This article analyses the resolution and its broader implications. In particular, it examines the significance of the Council’s characterisation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the binding powers of the Security Council for addressing threats to international peace and security which are not ‘threats to the peace’, and the implications for the Council’s mandate and the collective security framework. This article argues that the concept of ‘international peace and security’ under Article 24(1) of the United Nations (UN) Charter – rather than Article 39 ‘threats to the peace’ – is fundamental to the delimitation of the Security Council’s mandate and powers for addressing non-traditional threats to international peace and security such as pandemics and the climate crisis.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Stefania Negri

On July 1, 2020, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2532 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the world and its impact on international peace and security. After determining that “the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,” the Council called upon all parties to armed conflicts to apply an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and to engage in “a durable humanitarian pause … in order to enable the safe, unhindered and sustainable delivery of humanitarian assistance, provisions of related services by impartial humanitarian actors … and medical evacuations.” The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has called for a global ceasefire in connection with an international health emergency.


Author(s):  
Agathe Sarfati

Abstract Since the adoption of the first United Nations Security Council (UNSC) counterterrorism resolution after the 9/11 attacks, the UNSC has increasingly required the domestic criminalization of “terrorism” acts and ancillary activities. Without the inclusion of an explicit international humanitarian law (IHL) or humanitarian exception, the UNSC has – so far – failed to harmonize the counterterrorism legal framework with IHL, leaving it up to States to define the interaction between the two. In their national legislation and courts, States’ interpretations have varied but counterterrorism legislations have been used to adjudicate conducts in armed conflicts, regardless of their legality under IHL. As the domestication of UNSC offences is ongoing, good practices are highlighted in this paper and recommendations are offered to ensure the development of international customary law in accordance with IHL.


Author(s):  
Daniëlla Dam-de Jong

Natural resources have financed a number of armed conflicts in the last decades. Restoring governance over these natural resources to the government is an essential component of strategies to enable a transition to durable peace for resource rich states which have suffered from armed conflict. The UN Security Council has played a key role in efforts to break the link between natural resources and conflict financing, including by setting standards for the proper management of natural resources. This chapter identifies the standards that have been developed by the Security Council in relation to Liberia and the DRC and examines their implementation in the mandates of peacekeeping operations and in programmes set up by regional and international organizations. It is argued that the Security Council through its standard-setting helps to shape the normative content of the applicable jus post bellum.


2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Hultman

Protection of civilians is now at the forefront of the responsibilities of the international community. There is a strong international norm that civilian populations should be protected from violence. But how committed is the United Nations to acting in line with this norm? I argue that the UN Security Council (UNSC) has an interest in demonstrating that it takes violence against civilians seriously. Through a broadened security agenda including human security, the legitimacy and the credibility of the UNSC hinges on its ability to act as a guarantor of civilian protection. As a consequence, the UN is more likely to deploy peace operations in conflicts where the warring parties target the civilian population. The argument is supported by a statistical examination of all internal armed conflicts in 1989–2006. The results show that the likelihood of a UN peace operation is higher in conflicts with high levels of violence against civilians, but this effect is mainly visible after 1999. This year marked a shift in the global security agenda and it was also when the UNSC first issued an explicit mandate to protect civilians. Conflicts with high levels of violence against civilians are also more likely to get operations with robust mandates. This suggests that the UNSC is not just paying lip service to the protection norm, but that it actually acts to implement it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document