Part 2 The United Nations: What it is, 3 The Security Council

Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James

The Security Council is unique among the principal organs of the UN in two important ways: member states agree to accept and carry out the decisions it takes in accordance with the UN Charter, and member states have conferred upon it primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. It is also the most influential of the UN principal organs. Since the end of the Cold War the productiveness of the Security Council has increased dramatically. In the 1990s, it adopted an average of 64 resolutions a year. In 2016, it adopted 76 resolutions. This chapter discusses the Security Council’s membership, procedure, meetings, non-members, non-state entities, voting, presidency, and functions (oversight and peace and security).

Author(s):  
María José Cervell Hortal

The concept of nuclear nonproliferation was coined in a formal way at the beginning of the 1960s, though the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, would be the text that would consolidate it. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, humanity was conscious of the danger of these weapons, and nuclear proliferation turned into one of the main problems of the Cold War period; their control and the implementation of strategies to limit them have become a priority since then. During the Cold War, nuclear weapons and deterrence policy were crucial elements in the peaceful coexistence of the two power blocs, and the initiatives to control them grew, as both countries were conscious of the danger that this accumulation could cause. The NPT created two categories of states: the “officially” nuclear ones, which could maintain their weapons (China, France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States) and the nonnuclear ones, which were not allowed to acquire or develop them. Two more concepts emerged: vertical proliferation (that of the five official nuclear states) and horizontal proliferation (that of the states that had nuclear weapons but rejected to be a NPT party). Other treaties—multilateral, regional, and bilateral—which also sought to control the nuclear proliferation (see Treaties and Agreements Preventing Nuclear Weapons Proliferation) were subsequently added. The end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger. In fact, the Security Council considered in 1992 (Document S/23500, 31 January) that the proliferation of nuclear weapons “constitutes a threat for the international peace and security” (p. 4) that permitted it to activate, if necessary, chapter VII of the United Nations (UN) Charter and all the consequences derived from it. With the new millennium, the United Nations Secretary-General described mass destruction arms (nuclear included) as one of the threats to peace and security in the 21st century (see United Nations General Assembly 2005, cited under Security Council, General Assembly, and Secretary-General, para. 78). Nowadays, the nuclear question is still of great relevance. The nuclear problems in the 21st century’s international society are wide and varied and include states that withdrew the NPT (North Korea), states that fail to comply with it (Iran), states that have not yet ratified it (Israel, India, Pakistan), and non-state actors (such as terrorist groups), which are more and more interested in the wide destructive power of nuclear weapons. The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 7 July 2017 was a significant step, but the low number of state accessions shows that nuclear weapons are still a relevant threat.


Born in 1945, the United Nations (UN) came to life in the Arab world. It was there that the UN dealt with early diplomatic challenges that helped shape its institutions such as peacekeeping and political mediation. It was also there that the UN found itself trapped in, and sometimes part of, confounding geopolitical tensions in key international conflicts in the Cold War and post-Cold War periods, such as hostilities between Palestine and Iraq and between Libya and Syria. Much has changed over the past seven decades, but what has not changed is the central role played by the UN. This book's claim is that the UN is a constant site of struggle in the Arab world and equally that the Arab world serves as a location for the UN to define itself against the shifting politics of its age. Looking at the UN from the standpoint of the Arab world, this volume includes chapters on the potential and the problems of a UN that is framed by both the promises of its Charter and the contradictions of its member states.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-115
Author(s):  
Mariana Pimenta Oliveira Baccarini

Abstract This article analyses attempts to reform the United Nations Security Council from a historical-institutional perspective. It argues that the possibilities for reform have suffered from a ‘lock-in’ effect that has rendered the UN resistant to change. On the other hand, the UN decision-making process has evolved since its establishment, especially since the end of the Cold War, in response to new power aspirations, making it more representative and legitimate. The Security Council has also undergone continuous informal reform that has allowed it to adapt to new times.


Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Affonso Leal ◽  
Rafael Santin ◽  
David Almstadter De Magalhães

Since the first peacekeeping operation was created until today, the UN has been trying to adapt them to the different contexts in which they are deployed. This paper analy- ses the possibility of a bigger shift happening in the way the United Nations, through the Security Council, operates their Peacekeeping Operations. The change here ad- dressed includes, mainly, the constitution of more “robust” missions and the newly introduced Intervention Brigade in the Democratic Republic of Congo. By presenting three missions (UNEF I, UNAMIR and MONUSCO) deployed in different historic periods, we identified various elements in their mandates and in the way these were established which indicate a progressive transformation in the peacekeeping model since the Cold War - when conflicts were in their majority between States – until present days, when they occur mostly inside the States.


1969 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth

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.


Author(s):  
Gerd Hankel

According to the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, the member states of this organization resolved ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ as well as to act in a way that demonstrates ‘faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’. As demonstrated by the emergence and consolidation of the Cold War, the reality of the situation was very different. The two superpowers (USA and Soviet Union) pursued their own agendas based on their respective power politics. For the most part, the United Nations watched helplessly from the sidelines. The states were meticulous in their efforts to ensure that the United Nations was not allocated any powers that could have led to any appreciable infringement of their sovereignty.


2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 588-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Schrijver

Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations have frequently called upon their member States to respect the principles of good governance and international law. Increasingly, however, questions are raised concerning the behaviour of international organizations themselves and whether their own practice corresponds to what they expect from their member States. In other words: do organizations practise what they preach? Since many international organizations aim to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is reasonable to consider the extent to which these organizations respect such rights and freedoms themselves. Given the immunity of the United Nations, this paper examines some alternative legal procedures for the settlement of claims against the United Nations, taking into consideration contemporary international principles in relation to access to court, due process and reparation. It concludes with a number of recommendations.


Author(s):  
Aderemi Opeyemi Ade-Ibijola

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.  


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-218
Author(s):  
Jessica Priscilla Suri

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


2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson

Since the end of the Cold War a decade ago, the United Nations has exercised authority in significant new ways to address various aspects of resolving conflicts and dealing with their consequences. These new approaches have included the use offeree to end interstate and internal violence, the resolution of boundary issues and other disputes that might prolong the conflict, the elimination of threatening weapons capabilities, the prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law, and the compensation of victims of the conflict. These actions have been taken either with the consent of the state or states involved, or pursuant to the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or both.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document