Human rights, mass atrocity prevention and the United Nations security council: The long road ahead

UN Chronicle ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
Hardeep S. Puri
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


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Mariya Hristozova

In the last decade, the growing num­ber of acts of terrorism that threaten world peace and security, as well as the funda­mental values in every democratic socie­ty, in particular respect for fundamental human rights, have called for more active action by the international community in the struggle with terrorism. In this regard, the United Nations Security Council adopted a number of resolutions establish­ing sanctions regimes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (IDES), Al-Qai­da and the Taliban, and other individuals, groups, and related entities and suspected terrorist suspects. Despite the social pur­pose of these regimes, they created se­rious preconditions for violations of the human rights of the affected subjects, in particular the right to a fair trial, the right to an effective remedy, the right to prop­erty, the right of the persons concerned to be informed of the charges against them, the right to be heard and other procedur­al rights. This circumstance calls for re­forms to be made to the arrangements in place to ensure fundamental human rights in the fight against terrorism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-525
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett

Abstract This article examines the human rights implications of the asset freezing processes available to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. It does so through the lens of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, from whose jurisprudence, although not uniform, a number of principles can be distilled. By scrutinising a series of cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights and American Convention on Human Rights, respectively, the article demonstrates that the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property and to respect for one’s private and family life, home and correspondence are necessarily implicated by the execution of asset freezing measures in criminal and administrative contexts. The article concludes that, considering the human rights constraints placed on the exercise of their powers, both the International Criminal Court and United Nations Security Council, as well as States acting at their request, must pay attention to this case law with a view to respecting the human rights of those to whom asset freezing measures are applied.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-414
Author(s):  
Richard Illingworth

Abstract This article examines reform to the ‘veto’ power held by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The responsibility to react to mass atrocity crimes under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) lies predominantly in the hands of the Security Council, meaning that R2P and the veto are inseparable. Veto use can obstruct the Council from meeting its R2P, reflected by the ongoing crisis in Syria, over which 16 Council draft resolutions have been vetoed to date. This article applies a transitional cosmopolitan framework to offer an informal ‘Responsible Veto Restraint’ (rvr) recommendation for veto reform. This measure provides a more effective and feasible avenue for veto reform than the recommendations of the Accountability, Coherency, and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the France-Mexico Joint initiative for veto restraint. rvr can help promote R2P action through the Security Council, offering an avenue for progress towards addressing the problem of atrocity crimes.


ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irène Couzigou

AbstractThis article assesses whether the United Nations Security Council must respect human rights under international law when acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It argues that the Security Council has to respect human rights enshrined in those human rights treaties drawn up under the United Nations’ auspices and in non-peremptory customary international law, when this is not incompatible with the Security Council’s objective of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. The analysis also argues however that the Security Council must comply with peremptory international human rights, with no exception. The paper concludes that Chapter VII action by the Security Council is limited only to a small extent by international human rights standards.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document