Forty Years after 242: A ““Canonical”” Text in Disrepute??

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-48
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Power Factor ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Canonical Text ◽  
Canonical Status

This essay examines the consequences of the near-canonical status acquired over the years by UN Security Council Resolution 242. After tracing the evolution of the vision of peace seen to flow from 242, the essay explores the various ways in which the resolution has been read. In particular, the interpretation of Israel (backed by the United States) is examined, along with the balance of power factor. The essay concludes by suggesting that clinging to 242 as ““canonical”” inhibits clear-sighted thinking on new approaches that take cognizance of the greatly altered circumstances.

scholarly journals United States Fails to Secure Multilateral Snapback Sanctions Against Iran

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-146
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Trump Administration

The United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on May 8, 2018, and subsequently reimposed a range of unilateral sanctions on Iran. Throughout mid-2020, the Trump administration sought multilateral support for renewed UN sanctions against Iran, but the Security Council rejected those efforts. In response, the administration moved to initiate snapback sanctions under the terms of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. However, JCPOA participants and the Security Council largely rebuffed the administration's contention that it could activate the snapback mechanism, instead taking the position that U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA means that it is no longer a “participant state” as required to invoke snapback sanctions.

scholarly journals THE UNITED STATES UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN JCPOA 2015 UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-264
Author(s):  
Christopher Valerio Jovan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Un Security Council

Abstract In 2015, Iran with the P5 + 1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States, as well as the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) agreed on a JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) which deals with Iran's nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) is a controversial agreement. First, the JCPOA's status in international law is debated and is not considered as an international treaty. In the midst of the uncertainty over the status of the JCPOA, on May 8 2018, the United States unilaterally declared that it was withdrawing from the JCPOA. Even though the JCPOA has been endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). Thus, other JCPOA participating countries view the withdrawal of the United States as an act that is against international law. This article aims to determine whether the JCPOA is an international treaty and whether the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA is justified under international law. Keywords: JCPOA, UN Security Council Resolution, Withdrawal   Abstrak Pada tahun 2015, Iran dengan negara-negara P5+1 (China, Prancis, Jerman, Rusia, Inggris dan Amerika Serikat, serta Perwakilan Tinggi Uni Eropa untuk Urusan Luar Negeri dan Kebijakan Keamanan) menyepakati JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) mengenai pembatasan program nuklir Iran. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) merupakan perjanjian yang mengundang kontroversi. Pertama, status JCPOA mendapat perdebatan karena dianggap bukan perjanjian internasional. Kemudian pada 8 Mei 2018, Amerika Serikat secara sepihak menyatakan menarik diri dari JCPOA. Padahal JCPOA telah dimasukkan ke dalam Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB 2231 (2015). Sehingga peserta JCPOA lainnya menganggap tindakan Amerika Serikat sebagai perbuatan yang bertentangan dengan hukum internasional. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah JCPOA merupakan suatu perjanjian internasional dan apakah penarikan diri Amerika Serikat dari JCPOA dapat dibenarkan berdasarkan hukum internasional. Kata kunci: JCPOA, Penarikan Diri, Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB

Russia may entrench its influence in CAR

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mining Sites ◽  
Un Security Council

Significance Russia on June 28 rejected as “lies” similar allegations by the United States, United Kingdom and France at the UN Security Council. The exchanges come against the backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between Russia and France in CAR. Impacts Touadera’s ongoing offensive against rebel forces threatens to deliver a fatal blow to the peace deal he struck with them in 2019. Expanding Russian control over key mining sites could be a persistent source of frictions absent sophisticated local arrangements. Human rights concerns will deter some African leaders from engaging with Russia, but not all.

Historical Landmarks in the Hundred Years’ War on Palestine

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashid I. Khalidi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Historical Documents ◽  
Hundred Years War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
History Of ◽  
Modern Era

This essay argues that what has been going on in Palestine for a century has been mischaracterized. Advancing a different perspective, it illuminates the history of the last hundred years as the Palestinians have experienced it. In doing so, it explores key historical documents, including the Balfour Declaration, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and UN Security Council Resolution 242, none of which included the Palestinians in key decisions impacting their lives and very survival. What amounts to a hundred years of war against the Palestinians, the essay contends, should be seen in comparative perspective as one of the last major colonial conflicts of the modern era, with the United States and Europe serving as the metropole, and their extension, Israel, operating as a semi-independent settler colony. An important feature of this long war has been the Palestinians' continuing resistance, against heavy odds, to colonial subjugation. Stigmatizing such resistance as “terrorism” has successfully occluded the real history of the past hundred years in Palestine.

Course Corrections: The Obama Administration at the United Nations

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 335-349
Author(s):  
David Bosco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Most Significant Change ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Significant Change

Less has changed in US diplomacy at the United Nations than many observers expected when the Obama administration took office in January 2009. In the UN Security Council, the United States has pursued a generally steady course that in many respects builds on the accomplishments of the Bush administration. Unexpectedly, the Security Council’s pace of work diminished considerably during the first few years of the new administration. The most significant change is the atmospherics of US diplomacy, not its substance: the Obama administration has participated in processes that the Bush administration shunned and has toned down US criticism of the United Nations’ perceived shortcomings.

China will stymie India’s UN Security Council agenda

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Stringent Selection ◽  
Selection Of

Significance The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are the body’s five permanent members. India wants to join that group. Impacts India-China border tensions could surge in early 2021, worsening bilateral relations. Delhi will deepen security ties with Washington and its other partners in the ‘Quad’ grouping, Tokyo and Canberra. India will push for more stringent selection of UN peacekeepers.

Kashmir

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-99
Author(s):  
Francine R. Frankel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Northern Border ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
Muslim Majority ◽  
Azad Kashmir

India’s suspicion of US motives set in during the first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir in 1950, after the Hindu maharaja of Muslim majority Kashmir acceded to India. Great Britain, considering that Kashmir should join Muslim-majority Pakistan and that India-Pakistan cooperation was essential to Commonwealth defense, feared India could exercise its legal right to self-defense after tribesmen aided by Pakistan invaded across the northern border. Foreign Office records reveal how the British acted behind the scenes in the UN Security Council to block a discussion of India’s request to remove the tribesmen from Azad Kashmir as the condition for holding a plebiscite. The United States, influenced by the British, appeared to Nehru as the power behind the hostility toward India, while seeking a Cold War bastion in Kashmir.

Saving Darfur

2019 ◽  
pp. 95-113
Author(s):  
Marina E. Henke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coalition Building ◽  
African Union ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter assesses how the United Nations, in cooperation with the African Union, formed one of the largest and most expensive peacekeeping operations ever deployed to stop the bloodshed in Darfur. The operation took the name United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). The United States initiated and orchestrated the most important political aspects that made the deployment of UNAMID possible. At the United Nations, the United States was intimately involved in the drafting and negotiation of UN resolutions pertaining to the Darfur issue and prodded various UN Security Council members to support the respective resolutions. Once UNAMID was approved by the UN Security Council, the United States was deeply involved in recruiting UNAMID participants. Some countries—such as Egypt, China, Canada, and Ethiopia—had a political stake in the Darfur conflict and thus volunteered forces to deploy to Darfur. Nevertheless, the large majority of countries did not join UNAMID on their own initiative. Rather, they were wooed into the coalition by the United States. U.S. officials thereby followed specific practices to recruit these troops. Many of these practices exploited diplomatic embeddedness: U.S. officials used preexisting ties to ascertain the deployment preferences of potential recruits and constructed issue linkages and side payments. The United States was assisted in the UNAMID coalition-building process by UN staff, most notably from the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO).

scholarly journals Iraq and the Serious Consequences of Word Games: Language, Violence and Responsibility in the Security Council

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Scott
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council

For some months now and with special intensity in the past few weeks, a battle over legal process – what may or may not the United States do militarily in Iraq without new authorization from the UN Security Council, and at what stage and under what conditions should a Council resolution give such authorization? – has simultaneously become a battle over what words in a resolution will be sufficient to count as implicit authorization. The current diplomatic discourse around a new Iraq resolution is focussing on one or more “hidden triggers” in the draft text presented by the US on October 21.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document