scholarly journals Sub-regional organisations and the responsibility to protect: A case for the localisation and normative repatriation of sub-regional authority for coercive measures

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Paul Gichana
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
World Order ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Regional Organisations ◽  
The United Nations

SUMMARY The adoption of the responsibility to protect by the United Nations General Assembly marked a key milestone in the advancement of human security and the international protection of human rights. The textual adoption by the UNGA, however, was skewed in favour of the world order as it existed at the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations. Key among the recommendations downplayed by the UNGA text is the place of regional and sub-regional organisations in the implementation of the responsibility to protect. The consequence has been that sub-regional organisations have often been sidelined and their position on conflicts overlooked by the United Nations Security Council in its authorisation of R2P-related interventions. This article utilises the differences between the original R2P concept and the R2P norm adopted by the UNGA as well as subsequent discourses and state practice flowing from these differences to argue for R2P's localisation in the African context and for the normative repatriation of the authority of sub-regional organisations to adopt coercive measures under R2P. The article uses the Economic Community of West African States to illustrate the potential for sub-regional organisations to implement R2P when accorded the requisite regional and international support. Key words: sub-regional organisations; responsibility to protect; norm localisation; norm repatriation; peace and security

Human Rights Documentation

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-106
Author(s):  
Myrna S. Feliciano
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
International Protection ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Basic Purpose ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

Studies on international human rights had amorphous beginnings before 1945, which gradually evolved into an intricate but “untrodden area of systematic research.” This is largely attributed to the adoption of the United Nations Charter which sets forth the international protection of human rights as a basic purpose. The proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in December 10, 1948, provided the impetus for the development of new rules of international law defining in specific terms, individual rights and freedoms. The result is not only a substantial and rapidly developing body of law, both substantive and procedural, that has called for a systematic scholarly analysis but a bibliographic output on the subject which has reached alarming proportions to what is now being referred to as “the human rights documentation explosion.”

scholarly journals Brazil and Turkey in the 21st century: strategic interests in comparative perspective1

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 132-150
Author(s):  
André Luiz Reis da Silva ◽  
Gabriela Dorneles Ferreira da Costa
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
World Order ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Divergence Point ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Military

This research aims to compare the strategic interests and the positioning at the foreign policy level of Brazil and Turkey in the 21st century, considering the rise to power of, respectively, Workers’ Party (PT, in Portuguese) and Justice and Development’s Party (AKP, in Turkish). Methodologically, it was used bibliographical research and analysis of speeches in the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) between 2010 and 2015. It was verified convergence between Brazil and Turkey in themes as the acknowledgment of the multipolarity of the World Order, the necessity of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform, the importance of the fortification of the global economic governance by G-20 and the compromise with the International Law, with the terrorism combat and with the Humans Right protections. As divergence point, it was verified the debates about the sort of reform to be implemented at the UNSC and some questions involving the Arab Spring, such as the military intervention at Libya in 2011. At last, some themes are more recurrent at one country’s foreign policy than another’s; as topics regarding Central Asia and Middle East, at Turkey’s case, and subjects regarding BRICS and south-american regional integration, at Brazil’s case.

scholarly journals Democratization of the United Nations: What is Expected of India and the European Union?

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9S3) ◽  
pp. 1410-1416
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
World Order ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Strategic Policy ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Eu

The United Nations Security Council reflects a setup of the past rather than the reality of the present world order. There has been a clamour for the induction of new countries as permanent members into the council to render it truly universal. But would the expansion of the permanent members naturally lead to the democratization of the most important international organization?India has been one of the claimants for permanent membership. Even though India’s demand is legitimate, it must first seek and secure its place at the global high table and should play a role in helping shape the global order.The European Union tries to lead and influence the international politics by its example and intends to replicate its success at the global level. Just like India, the EU is a votary of ‘multilateralism’ and it stands for the UN, and insists on the need for international laws, agreements, rules and institutions. India is part of EU’s global security strategy and is considered as one among the ‘key’ strategic partners. EU can thus be the perfect and reliable partner for India to achieve its foreign and strategic policy goals. India should join hands with the EU to formulate new global democratic laws and norms, thereby becoming a norm setter on its own right.

Security Council Resolution 678 and Persian Gulf Decision Making: Precarious Legitimacy

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burns H. Weston
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Military Force ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Military ◽  
Rule Making

In his recent book The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, Thomas Franck defines “legitimacy” as it applies to the rules applicable among states. “Legitimacy,” he writes, “is a property of a rule or rule-making institution which itself exerts a pull toward compliance on those addressed normatively because those addressed believe that the rule or institution has come into being and operates in accordance with generally accepted principles of right process.In adopting Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, implicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq in response to Iraq’s August 2, 1990 invasion and subsequent occupation of Kuwait, the United Nations Security Council made light of fundamental UN Charter precepts and thereby flirted precariously with “generally accepted principles of right process.” It eschewed direct UN responsibility and accountability for the military force that ultimately was deployed, favoring, instead, a delegated, essentially unilateralist determination and orchestration of world policy, coordinated and controlled almost exclusively by the United States. And, in so doing, it encouraged a too-hasty retreat from the preeminently peaceful and humanitarian purposes and principles of the United Nations. As a consequence, it set a dubious precedent, both for the United Nations as it stands today and for the “new world order” that is claimed for tomorrow.

scholarly journals FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE: LEGAL CRITIQUE TO THE “JUS BELLUM JUSTUM” DOCTRINE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION THROUGH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Henrique Jerônimo Bezerra MARCOS ◽  
Gustavo Rabay GUERRA
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Just War Doctrine ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

ABSTRACT Objective: The paper presents a legal analysis of R2P in light of contemporary international law. It questions whether R2P is lawful as a just war (jus bellum justum) doctrine under international law, specifically under the general prohibition for the use of force pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. The paper first analyzes the just war doctrine in light of international law; thereafter, there is a study of the legal framework for the use of force in the United Nations Charter; and, in a third step, the study of the R2P in legal light as a just war doctrine. Methodology: The research is executed through a deductive approach, its scientific objective is exploratory, and its research technique is a bibliographical and documentary survey. The methodological limit is in a legal approach of the subject from a normative perspective, focused on the legal validity of the institute under international law. Results: It is concluded from the study that R2P has legal flaws and does not stand against United Nations Charter regulation on the usage of force, notably the norm that states that the use of force in international relations is an exclusive responsibility of the United Nations Security Council. Contributions: The study shows its pertinence as an endeavor into a strictly legal analysis of a complex and highly political subject of humanitarian interventions. Keywords: Responsibility to protect; humanitarian intervention; just war doctrine; United Nations Security Council. RESUMO Objetivo: O artigo apresenta uma análise jurídica da R2P à luz do Direito Internacional contemporâneo; questiona se a R2P é juridicamente válida como uma doutrina de guerra justa (jus bellum justum) sob o Direito Internacional, especificamente à luz da proibição geral de uso da força de acordo com a Carta das Nações Unidas. Para tanto, o artigo analisa a doutrina da guerra justa à luz do Direito Internacional; em seguida, estuda o marco legal para o uso da força na Carta da ONU; e, em terceiro lugar, estuda a R2P como uma doutrina de guerra justa. Metodologia:A pesquisa é executada através de abordagem dedutiva, seu objetivo científico é exploratório e sua técnica de pesquisa é bibliográfica e documental. O limite metodologia é uma abordagem legal do seu objeto em uma perspectiva normativa com foco na validade legal do instituto à luz do Direito Internacional.Resultados: Conclui-se do estudo que a R2P tem falhas jurídicas e não se coaduna com a normativa da Carta das Nações Unidas sobre o uso da força, notadamente a norma que estabelece que o uso da força nas relações internacionais é uma responsabilidade quase exclusiva do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Contribuições: O estudo mostra sua pertinência por se tratar de análise estritamente legal de um assunto complexo e altamente político que são as intervenções humanitárias. Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade de proteger; intervenção humanitária; doutrina da guerra justa; Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document