un Peacekeeping as the Most Presentable Part of Japan’s 2015 Peace and Security Legislation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 21-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuya Toyoda
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Japanese Diet

In September 2015, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws – the Peace and Security Legislation – to enable the Japan Self-Defense Force to play an enhanced role in peace deployments overseas. The enactment of the new laws was made possible by a “new” interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. While the main objective of the introduction of the laws was aimed at strengthening the alliance with the United States, jsdf participation in peace operations was also an important consideration politically. This article suggests that the Japanese government will now need to convince the public that the new Peace and Security Legislation is compatible with Japan’s constitutionally mandated pacifism. In light of the prospect of an expanded participation of Japan in international peace operations this will be particularly important.

Why Are the Missiles (and Missile Defence) Called Peace-Keepers? – Corroding the Concept of Peaceful Use

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 789-828
Author(s):  
Keith Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Security Framework ◽  
Crucial Element ◽  
Earth Space ◽  
Peace And Security

The United States is abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a limited missile defence shield. Amongst other developments, this is prompting a reconsideration of the global security framework. However, a crucial element is missing from the current missile defence proposals: a clearly articulated concept of peaceful use, applicable both to outer space and to earth-space. The deployment of missile defence runs counter to emerging norms. It has effects going far beyond the abandonment or re-configuration of specific Cold War agreements. In a community of nations committed to the maintenance of international peace and security (cf. national or plurilateral security), sustainable meaning for widely used and accepted norms of peaceful use and peaceful purposes is at risk.

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.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

Security Council

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-428
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Chief Of Staff ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
Arab States

At the request of the United States the Council began consideration on March 26, 1956 of the extent of compliance by Israel and the Arab states with the Armistice Agreements and with the Security Council's resolutions of March 30, 1955, September 8, 1955 and January 19, 1956. The representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria took part in the Council's discussions. The Council had before it a draft resolution submitted by the United States in the preambular part of which the Council recalled the three earlier resolutions; noted that in each of these resolutions the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization and the parties to the General Armistice Agreements concerned had been requested by the Council to undertake certain specific steps for the purpose of ensuring that the tensions along the armistice lines should be reduced; and noted with grave concern that despite the efforts of the Chief of Staff the proposed steps had not been carried out. Under the terms of the operative part of the resolution, the Council 1) considered that the situation currently prevailing between the parties concerning the enforcement of the Armistice Agreements and the compliance given to the above-mentioned resolutions of the Council was such that its continuance was likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security; 2) requested the Secretary-General to undertake, as a matter of urgent concern, a survey of the various aspects of enforcement of and compliance with the four General Armistice Agreements and the three earlier resolutions;

Part I General Framework, 4 UN Peace Operations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bothe Michael
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces ◽  
Internal Order

This chapter examines the laws regarding UN operations for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security involving military elements. UN peacekeeping forces are by necessity present on ‘foreign’ territory—a fact which renders peacekeeping forces comparable to traditional Visiting Forces. There are, however, a number of differences which distinguish peacekeeping forces from the usual type of Visiting Forces. The main difference is their international mandate as an instrumentality of the UN. Their task is either the prevention or the pacification of international armed conflicts by serving as buffers or observers, or the reestablishment of internal order in a country through a wide array of measures, in particular after the end of an internal conflict. This specific mandate must be reflected in one way or the other in the legal rules which regulate their status and their rights and duties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document