The Rhodesian Question at the United Nations

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 649-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Leo Cefkin
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
First Time

On December 16, 1966, the Security Council held its 1340th meeting and adopted its 232nd resolution. It was a historic resolution. For the first time the Security Council voted to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter aimed at ending the rebellion against the United Kingdom by the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia. Acting in accordance with Article 39, the Council determined that the situation in Rhodesia constituted “a threat to international peace and security,” and, under Article 41, it decided that all Member States of the United Nations must apply sanctions to bar the importation of a number of basic Rhodesian exports.

Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Legislative History of the United Nations Charter

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. H. McCormack
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Self Defence

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that:Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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 the exercise of this right of selfdefense 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.International lawyers are still arguing about the scope of the right of self-defence in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Most of the arguments focus on the semantics of Article 51. Those who argue for a “restrictive view” of the provision emphasise the qualifying phrase “if an armed attack occurs”.

scholarly journals The United Nations Security Council Reforms and The Permanent Five Challenge: A Historical Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aderemi Opeyemi Ade-Ibijola
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Middle Powers

The manner in which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is presently constituted remains the greatest challenge to the realization of the ambitions of UNSC permanent seat seekers. For the highly infl uential economic giants better known as the “middle powers”- Japan, India, Brazil, and Germany; and African leading contenders such as Nigeria, South-Africa and Egypt ambitions to yield the desired result, they must mandatorily secure the support of the UNSC Permanent fi ve veto holding members. In light of the foregoing, this paper examines the attempts to reform the UNSC since the late 1960s and the roles of the Permanent fi ve members of the UNSC such as Britain, China, France, USA and Russia regarding this endeavour. Specifi cally, it argues that the Permanent fi ve member’s disposition to this issue has been the major challenge to the much desired reform of the UNSC. The UNSC is the main organ of the United Nations (UN) that is vested with powers to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation in mid 1940s, this organ has been criticized for its undemocratic nature by member states whose region are either not represented in the Security Council (SC) or under-represented.  

scholarly journals THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON SANCTIONS TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-218
Author(s):  
Jessica Priscilla Suri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe United Nations Security Council (SC) holds the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security as stipulated in Article 24 of the United Nations Charter (UN Charter). The emergence of international terrorism as a threat to international peace and security encourages the SC to impose sanctions in the form of assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo towards targeted individuals through the SC Resolutions on Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, the implementation of UN targeted sanctions towards individuals has been violating the targeted individual’s human rights to property, rights of movement, rights to privacy, honor and reputation, and also the rights to a fair trial. This article will explain about the legitimation of the SC Resolutions in imposing sanction towards an individual, and the obligation of UN member states towards the SC resolution that imposes sanctions against its citizen. The violations of human rights stemming from the implementation of SC Resolutions on sanction towards individuals indicate that the resolutions have been adopted beyond the limits of international law. Therefore this condition makes the resolutions lost its legitimacy under international law. In accordance with Article 25 and 103 of the UN Charter, all member states have an obligation to accept, carry on and give priority to the obligation originating from the SC Resolution including to implement the sanction measures towards individuals. Nevertheless, member states must accommodate and harmonize its obligations in respecting, protecting and fulfilling all the individuals’ rights who are targeted by the SC along with its obligation to the SC Resolutions. Keywords: Human Rights, Sanction towards Individuals, United Nations Security Council.AbstrakDewan Keamanan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (DK) memiliki tanggungjawab utama untuk menjaga perdamaian dan keamanan internasional berdasarkan Pasal 24 Piagam PBB. Munculnya terorisme internasional sebagai ancaman terhadap perdamaian dan keamanan internasional mendorong DK untuk menjatuhkan sanksi berupa pembekuan aset, pelarangan perjalanan serta embargo senjata kepada individu yang ditargetkan melalui rezim Resolusi Taliban, Al-Qaida dan Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Dalam penerapannya penjatuhan sanksi tersebut menimbulkan pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) yaitu hak terhadap properti, hak kebebasan berpindah, hak atas privasi, kehormatan dan reputasi serta hak atas proses pengadilan yang adil. Pelanggaran HAM tersebut memunculkan tujuan dilakukannya penulisan artikel ini yaitu untuk menunjukan mengenai legitimasi resolusi DK yang menjatuhkan sanksi kepada individu, serta memaparkan mengenai kewajiban negara anggota PBB terhadap resolusi DK yang menjatuhkan sanksi kepada warga negaranya. Pelanggaran HAM yang disebabkan oleh penerapan penjatuhan sanksi terhadap individu mengindikasikan bahwa resolusi yang mendasari penjatuhan sanksi tersebut diadopsi dengan melampaui batasan-batasan penjatuhan sanksi DK dan telah kehilangan legitimasinya menurut hukum internasional. Sehingga meskipun negara memiliki kewajiban berdasarkan Pasal 25 dan 103 Piagam PBB untuk tetap menerima, melaksanakan dan mengutamakan kewajibannya berdasarkan Resolusi DK yang menjatuhkan sanksi terhadap individu, negara tetap harus mengakomodir dan mengharmonisasikan kewajibannya dalam menghormati, melindungi dan memenuhi HAM individu yang dijatuhkan sanksi saat melaksanakan kewajibannya yang berasal dari Resolusi DK. Kata Kunci: Dewan Keamanan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa, Hak Asasi Manusia, Sanksi terhadap Individu

Security Council Legislation, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and the Principle of Subsidiarity

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS TSAGOURIAS
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Making

AbstractThis article considers the relationship between the United Nations and its member states in view of the Security Council's assertion of legislative powers. It claims that the exponential growth in UN powers at the expense of the powers of its member states cannot be arrested by legal means, because of the nature of the UN system and the absence of legally enforceable criteria and compulsory dispute-settlement mechanisms. For this reason, it proposes a different approach to law-making in the area of international peace and security – one that is built around the principle of subsidiarity, as reflected in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. The role of the principle of subsidiarity in this respect is to determine which authority is best suited to exercise legislative power and how such power should be exercised in order to attain the objective of peace and security more efficiently. It is thus contended that the principle of subsidiarity promotes co-operative relations between the United Nations and its member states by protecting the latters' jurisdictional authority from unnecessary interference.

scholarly journals Reform of the Backbone of the United Nations

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. p279
Author(s):  
Hanne Christensen
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Social Strategies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Social Causes

This paper outlines what can be done to reform the backbone of the United Nations to further the work of the organization. That is the General Assembly, the Security Council and ECOSOC. It shows that the General Assembly can play a stronger role in international peace and security matters by suggesting peace proposals for potential conflicts, and inform the Security Council if, and when, it is not in agreement with measures taken by the Council. The paper comments on ongoing negotiations on Security Council reform and shows the difficulty of reforming the veto clause. It suggests that ECOSOC deals with both economic and social causes of conflicts and develops macro-economic and macro-social strategies to prevent conflict for the General Assembly to recommend to member states and onwards to the Security Council to act on. Some concrete examples are indicated to that effect.

scholarly journals Global security: confronting challenges to universal peace

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin P Clements
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Global Security ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
United Nations Charter

The challenge of peace is complex and intractable. Much depends on the meaning of the concept and the definition of the term. And in that respect much depends on whether a diplomatic-legal or a sociopolitical approach is adopted. The diplomatic-legal approach is enshrined in the United Nations Charter of 1945. The primary goal of the United Nations is to protect future generations from the scourge of war. The charter bestows on the Security Council the primary responsibility for maintaining, or restoring, international peace and security. 

Security Council

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-517
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The question of the threat to Thailand was discussed by the Security Council at its 673d and 674th meetings. After again explaining the reasons for his government's belief that the condition of tension in the general region in which Thailand was located would, if continued, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the Thai representative, Pote Sarasin, again requested that the Peace Observation Commission establish a sub-commission of from three to five members to dispatch observers to Thailand and to visit Thailand itself if it were deemed necessary. The Thai draft differed from earlier Thai proposals, however, in that the original mandate of the sub-commission applie only to the territory of Thailand; if the sub-commission felt that it could not adequately accomplish its mission without observation or visit in states contiguous to Thailand, the Peace Observation Commission or the Security Council could issue the necessary instructions. Representatives of New Zealand, Turkey, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Colombia and France spoke in support of the Thai draft. They denied, as had been alleged by the Soviet representative (Tsarapkin) at an earlier meeting, that Council consideration or action on this question would be detrimental to the success of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Chinese People's Republic, Soviet Union and other states in Geneva. While agreeing that it would be impropitious for the Council to consider directly the situation in Indochina as long as it was being discussed in Geneva, they argued that the question raised by Thailand was quite separate and that the Council had a duty to comply with the Thai request.

Security Council

1957 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-120
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Suez Canal ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Unilateral Action ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Egyptian Government

On September 12, 1956, the representatives of France and the United Kingdom drew the attention of the President of the Council to the situation in the Suez. On September 23, they requested the President to call a meeting on September 26 to consider the situation created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian government in nationalizing the Suez Canal. The Egyptian government also requested that the Council meet to consider action against Egypt, particularly by the United Kingdom and France, which in its view constituted a danger to international peace and security.

14. The use of force and collective security

2019 ◽  
pp. 346-374
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter looks at the use of force and collective security. Today, the United Nations Charter embodies the indispensable principles of international law on the use of force. These include the prohibition on the unilateral use of force found in Article 2(4), and the recognition of the inherent right of all States to use force in self-defence found in Article 51. Finally, under Chapter VII, a collective security system centred upon the Security Council was established for the maintenance of international peace and security. A key debate over the scope of Article 2(4) is whether a new exception has been recognized which would allow the use of force motivated by humanitarian considerations. It is argued that these ‘humanitarian interventions’ would allow a State to use force to protect people in another State from gross and systematic human rights violations when the target State is unwilling or unable to act.

The Security Council in the May 1967 Crisis: A Study in Frustration

1969 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Six Day War

Members of the United Nations have conferred upon the Security Council “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and have agreed “that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf” (article 24 of the U.N. Charter). The question may be asked whether the Security Council lived up to this responsibility during the May 1967 crisis in the Middle East which preceded the Six Day War. Did the Security Council do everything in its power to avoid the clash, and what were the reasons for its failure to avert the crisis?In order to be able to evaluate the Council's stand, it will be necessary to recall summarily the developments which led up to the hostilities of June 1967, as well as the Security Council's powers under the Charter of the U.N.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document