General Assembly

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-421
Keyword(s):  
General Assembly ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Future

The second part of the sixteenth session of the General Assembly met at UN Headquarters from January 15 through February 3, 1962, when it was adjourned. The Assembly considered the following agenda items, discussion of which had been deferred from the first part of the sixteenth session: 1) complaint by Cuba of threats to international peace and security; 2) the situation in Angola; 3) question of the future of Ruanda-Urundi; and 4) information from non-self-governing territories.

scholarly journals Uniting for “Peace” in the Second Cold War: A Response to Larry Johnson

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
Boris N. Mamlyuk
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Legal Justification

Larry Johnson’s timely and important essay challenges both utopian and realist accounts of UN law and practice by reviving the debate over the nature and functions of the UN General Assembly, particularly the General Assembly’s power to deploy certain legal tactics not only to influence collective security deliberations in the UN Security Council, but also, more significantly, to provide some legal justification for multilateral military “collective measures” in the event of Security Council gridlock. One vehicle by which the General Assembly may assert its own right to intervene in defense of “international peace and security” is a “Uniting for Peace” (UFP) resolution, authorized by resolution 377(V) (1950). At its core, a “uniting for peace” resolution is an attempt to circumvent a Security Council deadlock by authorizing Member States to take collective action, including the use of force, in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. General Assembly resolution 377(V) does not require resolutions to take specific legal form—language that echoes the preambular “lack of unanimity of the permanent members [that results in the Security Council failing to] exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” is sufficient to render a given resolution a UFP, provided the General Assembly resolution calls for concrete “collective [forceful] measures.” For this reason, experts disagree on precisely how many times a UFP has indeed been invoked or implemented, although informed analysts suggest UFP has been invoked in slightly more than ten instances since 1950.

scholarly journals He Got It Almost Right

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Frederic L. Kirgis
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Icj

Larry Johnson’s answer to his own question is a qualified “no.” Surely he is correct when he says that the General Assembly does not need the Uniting for Peace resolution in order to consider a matter that is on the UN Security Council’s agenda. The International Court of Justice made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. It is only when the Security Council is actively pursuing the matter that UN Charter Article 12(1) requires the General Assembly to defer to the Council.Johnson is also correct when he says that Uniting for Peace does not serve to enhance the authority that the UN Charter itself supplies to the Assembly to adopt non-binding resolutions intended to keep or restore peace. The ICJ also made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. Without relying on the Uniting for Peace resolution, the ICJ in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its Opinion approved the practice of the General Assembly to deal with matters concerning maintenance of international peace and security. The Court turned to the Uniting for Peace resolution only in the ensuing paragraphs of its Opinion, dealing with procedural matters related to the Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion.

The Future of International Administrative Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Amerasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Current Attitude ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Future

The prospects for international administrative law and the international administrative legal system in the future and particularly in the next century will be determined to a large extent by how much importance the world attaches to international organisations and particularly to the maintenance of an independent international civil service as a means of securing international peace and security, promoting development and fostering international co-operation. Not only must there be a change in the current attitude of certain governments towards international organisations as a means to this end but there must also be a more sanguine approach to the singular importance of an independent civil service in the process. What can be said about the international administrative legal system and international administrative law in the future must be conditioned necessarily to a large extent by assumptions made about what is going to happen in the future to both international organisations and the civil service.

scholarly journals Space Arms Control:Lex Lataand Currently Active Proposals

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinyuan SU
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Research Development ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Primary Level ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Space Weapons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe inadequacy of existing international law in the prevention of an arms race in outer space leaves uncertainties to international peace and security. The resurgence of aggressive space programmes in the new millennium has intensified concerns over the possible degradation of outer space into an area of conflicts, prompting various initiatives aimed to fill this loophole. The year 2014 witnessed the release of the revised draft PPWT proposed by China and Russia at the CD, the fifth public edition of the ICoC promoted by the EU, and the adoption of the Resolution on “No first placement of weapons in outer space” in the General Assembly. This paper attempts to make a comparison between the three initiatives in terms of their postulated primary-level obligations, namely to what extent space weapons are prohibited on the chain of “research, development, testing, placement and use”, and the verification of compliance with these obligations.

1. Resolution on the Intervention of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China in Korea, adopted by the General Assembly, February 1,1951.

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-421
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security

Notingthat the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in regard to Chinese Communist intervention in Korea,

The Charter Travaux Préparatoires and United Nations Powers to Use Armed Force

1966 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 81-101
Author(s):  
C. F. Amerasinghe
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security

The powers of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations to take collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly to maintain armed forces for that purpose, and the power of the General Assembly to finance these activities were much discussed during the recent crisis in the Organization when certain members refused to contribute to the support of the UNEF and Congo Operation. Various aspects of the matter have been discussed by writers; they have also been dealt with by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of June 1962 where it held that the UNEF and Congo Operation undertaken by the General Assembly and Security Council were intra vires the powers of these organs and that the expenses incurred by the Organization in the execution of those ventures were “expenses of the Organization” for the purposes of Article 17 (2) of the Charter. The Court and some of the judges who gave separate opinions further made a definite contribution to the interpretation of certain aspects of the Charter in the course of arriving at these conclusions.

5. Resolution of the General Assembly Regarding Threats to the Political Independence and Territorial Integrity of Greece, October 21, 1947

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-196
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Of Greece

1. WHEREASThe peoples of the United Nations have expressed in the Charter of the United Nations their determination to practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security; and to that end the Members of the United Nations have obligated themselves to carry out the purposes and principles of the Charter;

scholarly journals The Legalizing and Legitimizing Function of UN General Assembly Resolutions

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 123-128
Author(s):  
Stefan Talmon
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Permanent Member ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The Government

In his essay on the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, Larry Johnson suggests that the General Assembly can recommend non-use of force collective measures when the Security Council is blocked because of a permanent member casting a veto. He rightly points out that today there is no longer any need to use Uniting for Peace for such recommendations. The General Assembly can and has recommended so-called “voluntary sanctions” in cases where it found a threat to international peace and security to exist. For example, in resolution 2107 (XX) of December 21, 1965 concerning the Question of Territories under Portuguese Administration, the Assembly, making no reference to Uniting for Peace, urged “Member States to take the following measures, separately or collectively:(a)To break off diplomatic and consular relations with the Government of Portugal or refrain from establishing such relations;(b)To close their ports to all vessels flying the Portuguese flag or in the service of Portugal;(c)To prohibit their ships from entering any ports in Portugal and its colonial territories;(d)To refuse landing and transit facilities to all aircraft belonging to or in the service of the Government of Portugal and to companies registered under the laws of Portugal;(e)To boycott all trade with Portugal.”

Revisiting the Legal Effect of General Assembly Resolutions: Can an Authorising Competence for the Assembly be Grounded in the Assembly’s ‘Established Practice’, ‘Subsequent Practice’ or Customary International Law?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Barber
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Face

Abstract The Security Council’s recent intractability in the face of human rights and humanitarian crises has directed increased attention to the General Assembly’s secondary responsibility for international peace and security. Despite considerable academic attention to the issue, however, significant questions remain regarding the scope of the Assembly’s powers. One of the most significant of these questions is whether the Assembly may authorise conduct that would otherwise be unlawful. This question is important, because while there is good authority to support the proposition that the Assembly may recommend measures up to and including the use of force, if the Assembly is not also competent to authorise such measures, we are left with the unsatisfactory scenario in which the Assembly is legally competent to make recommendations that States may not legally be able to act upon. Drawing on the International Law Commission’s 2018 Draft Articles on Subsequent Agreement and Subsequent Practice, as well as those on Identification of Customary International Law, this article explores whether an authorising competence on the part of the General Assembly can be grounded in the Assembly’s practice. Specifically, it considers whether the Assembly’s practice of recommending and seemingly purporting to authorise coercive measures may amount to ‘established practice’, thus forming part of the ‘rules of the organisation’ within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT); or alternatively if it can be considered ‘subsequent practice’ within the meaning of the VCLT; or alternatively it may attest to a rule of customary international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document