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.

The Concept of "Just War" in Contemporary International Law

10.12737/3468 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 117-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Кира Сазонова ◽  
Kira Sazonova
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Real Challenge

The aims and goals of war have drastically changed during the recent decades. The prohibition of the use of force fixed in the Charter of the United Nations became a real challenge to many states. Nevertheless, we observe regular use of force in international relations. Though "classic" interstate wars became rather rare, the states continue to solve their political problems by exploiting the armed forces. In these circumstances it is problematic to explain the use of force from the legal point. That is why we talk so much about "preventive self-defence", "humanitarian intervention", "the responsibility to protect" and some other controversial concepts. One of the most disputable among them is a "just war" concept, which has practically not been analyzed in our domestic doctrine. However, the western school of international law is actively implementing precisely the legal dimension of the "just war" concept. Of course, the concept itself is extremely political, but the consequences of its practical implementation may have a great impact on contemporary international law, as it tries to legitimize the use of force in circumvention of the Charter of the United Nations. Because of the huge importance of the question, the analysis of the concept seems extremely actual.

scholarly journals The Legality Of Nato'S Action In The Former Republic Of Yugoslavia (Fry) Under International Law

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

The use of force has been prohibited in international relations since at least the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2 (4) of the Charter states:All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations.

The World Court and Jus Cogens

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.

Retaliation and Reprisal

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

This chapter focuses on the evolution of the international law on the use of force as it relates to the concepts of retaliation and reprisal, particularly since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945. After defining the concepts of retaliation and reprisal as understood in international law, the chapter considers whether armed reprisals are contrary to the UN Charter, along with the debates surrounding the UN Security Council’s condemnation of retaliatory actions. It then examines claimed instances of state practice, as well as judicial and scholarly views on the lawfulness of such reprisals. Finally, it discusses arguments calling for the revival of reprisals or retaliation as permitted exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force.

scholarly journals Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZOU Keyuan
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe Charter of the United Nations designates the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as one of the principal organs of the United Nations, assuming the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. It has the power to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, to make recommendations, and decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. This article addresses a number of issues concerning how the UNSC Resolutions are enforced at sea in accordance with applicable international law and makes special reference to the circumstances in East Asia, particularly the Korean Peninsula.

scholarly journals International law on the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Vladimir A. Jilkine
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Fundamental Factor ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations

The Article presents an analysis of the main provisions of the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force proclaimed in the UN Charter and amended by Helsinki Final Act. The UN Charter puts first the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force among the main principles of international law, which is a fundamental factor in ensuring peace and safety throughout the world. The only mechanism for making decisions on the use of military force as the final argument can only be the UN Charter. The problem of the use of force was and remains one of the most complex and debatable in international law. The article provides a comparative and legal analysis of sources of international law governing the use of force or the threat of force in international law and individual cases in the practice of international relations. Russia does everything possible to prevent the use of military force in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, destabilization of the situation in the world, and builds international relations on the principles of international law for ensuring the reliable and equal security of states.

scholarly journals Iraq, the U.N. and the Law

1969 ◽  
pp. 560
Author(s):  
L. C. Green
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
United Nations Charter

This paper discusses the international legal issues arising out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the United Nations response to the conflict. The author frames his analysis considering just war theory, international law and the United Nations Charter. After looking at the historical relations between Iraq and Kuwait, Professor Green examines the United Nations response to the conflict considering the related U.N. resolutions. Reference is made to the law of armed conflict and international law on the treatment of civilians and diplomats. Finally, the author briefly discusses legal problems faced by some of the states aligned against Iraq.

scholarly journals The United Nations Security Council Sanctions and International Human Rights

ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irène Couzigou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
United Nations Charter

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