Has the United Nations Security Council Implicitly Removed Al Bashir's Immunity?

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Papillon
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Heads Of State

AbstractOn 4 March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the incumbent Head of State of Sudan. This article's purpose is to suggest a legal basis for reconciling the well established rule on personal immunities under customary international law with the prosecution of Heads of State from non-parties to the ICC Statute. While arguing for the legality of Al Bashir's warrant as well as the legality of the warrant's enforcement, this article explores the basis upon which the UN Security Council can remove immunities. By giving special attention to the concept of waivers, the article suggests that the UN organ implicitly removed Al Bashir's immunity when it referred the situation of Sudan to the ICC in 2005.

What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Falk
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Inspection Process ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

President George W. Bush historically challenged the United Nations Security Council when he uttered some memorable words in the course of his September 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly: “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” In the aftermath of the Iraq war there are at least two answers to this question. The answer of the U.S. government would be to suggest that the United Nations turned out to be irrelevant due to its failure to endorse recourse to war against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The answer of those who opposed the war is that the UN Security Council served the purpose of its founding by its refusal to endorse recourse to a war that could not be persuasively reconciled with the UN Charter and international law. This difference of assessment is not just factual, whether Iraq was a threat and whether the inspection process was succeeding at a reasonable pace; it was also conceptual, even jurisprudential. The resolution of this latter debate is likely to shape the future role of the United Nations, as well as influence the attitude of the most powerful sovereign state as to the relationship between international law generally and the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy.

The UN Security Council Resolution 1540: to Strengthen the International Law in Non-Proliferation Sphere

2014 ◽  
pp. 24-33
Author(s):  
E. Kirichenko
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The United Nations

The article addresses the UNSC Resolution 1540 as the unique legally binding document strengthening international legal basis of MDW non-proliferation regime. It analyses the activity of Committee 1540, its priorities, as well as results of monitoring of Resolution implementation by the states-parties to the United Nations.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2474

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Claire Clement
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Collective Voice ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Missing Persons ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
First Time

On June 11, 2019, the United Nations (UN) Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2474 on missing persons in armed conflict. The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has agreed on a thematic text dedicated to this issue, lending its collective voice to call for more effective implementation of existing obligations towards missing persons—both civilian and military—and their families under international law.

scholarly journals International Law, COVID-19 and Feminist Engagement with the United Nations Security Council: The End of the Affair?

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-328
Author(s):  
Catherine O’Rourke
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Care Work ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
Seminal Contribution ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Gender Based

AbstractThe gendered implications of COVID-19, in particular in terms of gender-based violence and the gendered division of care work, have secured some prominence, and ignited discussion about prospects for a ‘feminist recovery’. In international law terms, feminist calls for a response to the pandemic have privileged the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), conditioned—I argue—by two decades of the pursuit of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda through the UNSC. The deficiencies of the UNSC response, as characterised by the Resolution 2532 adopted to address the pandemic, manifest yet again the identified deficiencies of the WPS agenda at the UNSC, namely fragmentation, securitisation, efficacy and legitimacy. What Resolution 2532 does bring, however, is new clarity about the underlying reasons for the repeated and enduring nature of these deficiencies at the UNSC. Specifically, the COVID-19 ‘crisis’ is powerful in exposing the deficiencies of the crisis framework in which the UNSC operates. My reflections draw on insights from Hilary Charlesworth’s seminal contribution ‘International Law: A Discipline of Crisis’ to argue that, instead of conceding the ‘crisis’ framework to the pandemic by prioritising the UNSC, a ‘feminist recovery’ must instead follow Charlesworth’s exhortation to refocus on an international law of the everyday.

scholarly journals Keeping international law international, a reflection on Anthea Roberts’ “is international law international?”

2020 ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
D. K. Labin ◽  
T. Potier
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
To Come ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

INTRODUCTION. Occasionally a book appears which has a significant impact on the scholarly community. A fine example of this is the work considered here by the Australian international lawyer, Anthea Roberts. Until very recently, comparative studies on international law were rare. However, as international law further develops and widens, so special attention will need to be paid to ensure that international law students are, to a greater extent, taught the same material and in the same way. As municipal systems of law became more mature, so doctrine and jurisprudence began to diverge. International law has now entered such a phase in its development and, in this excellent book, Dr. Roberts asks a series of very important questions: exactly what is taking place, what are the factors that are driving these processes, is such to be welcomed, is it unstoppable and where do we go from here?MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article reflects on Anthea Roberts’ book “Is International Law International?” (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017). The authors of the article consider the contribution of the monograph to legal science, particularly with its interest in a revived Comparative International Law.RESEARCH RESULTS. The view of the authors of the article is that Anthea Roberts’ book is a work of profound significance, which will, hopefully, inspire additional research in the field of Comparative International Law in years to come.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Comparative International Law is a relatively neglected field in International Law. Without question, the international legal academy (from the elite law schools of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) emphasises different things both in its scholarly writings and pedagogy. This needs to be given greater attention, even if, at least for now, it cannot be entirely arrested; so that the much-feared fragmentation of international law into not only separate fields and standards, but also in terms of agreeing on its content and application, is minimised. 

11. Use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the United Nations Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years, the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

5 Formal Requirements for Valid Consent to Direct Military Assistance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Erika
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Valid Consent ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter explores potential formal requirements that may affect the validity of consent to direct military assistance. Customary international law only imposes two specific, formal limitations on the legal construct of military assistance on request. The first would be that the request for or consent to military assistance must be issued (and withdrawn) by the highest officials of a state, namely, the head of state and/or government. Where these two positions are not combined within the same person and there is disagreement between them as to whether consent exists, the domestic law of the country in question may be decisive in determining who has the final say in the matter. However, such disagreement between the two highest state officials is likely to be an indication of the political fragility of the consent, which should caution against relying exclusively on consent as the legal basis for the forcible measures. The second constraint imposed by customary international law concerns the requirement that ex ante consent as expressed in pro-invasion treaty clauses must be complemented by ad hoc consent at the time of the forcible measures. Apart from these two constraints, customary international law does not seem to impose any particular formal requirements on states expressing consent to forcible measures on its territory.

Elected member influence in the United Nations Security Council

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Farrall ◽  
Marie-Eve Loiselle ◽  
Christopher Michaelsen ◽  
Jochen Prantl ◽  
Jeni Whalan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Real Power ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Common Understanding

AbstractThis article reassesses how members of the UN Security Council exercise influence over the Council’s decision-making process, with particular focus on the ten elected members (the E10). A common understanding of Security Council dynamics accords predominance to the five permanent members (the P5), suggesting bleak prospects for the Council as a forum that promotes the voices and representation of the 188 non-permanent members. The assumption is that real power rests with the P5, while the E10 are there to make up the numbers. By articulating a richer account of Council dynamics, this article contests the conventional wisdom that P5 centrality crowds out space for the E10 to influence Council decision-making. It also shows that opportunities for influencing Council decision-making go beyond stints of elected membership. It argues that the assumed centrality of the P5 on the Council thus needs to be qualified and re-evaluated.

Part 3 The Post 9/11-Era (2001–), 48 The Intervention in Afghanistan—2001–

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byers Michael
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Complex Relationships ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter addresses the US and NATO-led intervention in Afghanistan from 2001 to the present day. It examines the different legal justifications advanced or available for the intervention, namely self-defence, UN Security Council authorization, and intervention by invitation. It explores the complex relationships between these justifications and, particularly, the strategies adopted by states in choosing between them. The chapter concludes by considering the effects of the intervention on the customary international law of self-defence as it concerns non-state actors located in “unaware or unable” states, and anticipatory or pre-emptive responses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document