Collective Security and the United Nations: A Definition of the UN Security System

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 1315
Author(s):  
Edward Thomas Rowe ◽  
M. V. Naidu
Author(s):  
Giovanni Distefano

This chapter examines the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) concerning the comprehensive ban on the use of force in international relations between states. It provides a legal definition of aggression and self-defence and addresses some unanswered questions concerning some of the alleged exceptions to the comprehensive ban on the use of force. It shows that the obligation not to resort to threat or use of force is not subordinated to the actual functioning of the UN collective security system and highlights the UN Charter’s establishment of substantive and institutional framework for making the prohibition on the use and threat of force between states a truly attainable goal.


Author(s):  
Kreß Claus

This chapter discusses the concept of aggression. Article 39, the opening clause of the United Nations Charter’s collective security system, contains the term ‘act of aggression’, the existence of which in a given case falls to be determined by the United Nations (UN) Security Council. Recalling Article 39, the UN General Assembly, in 1974, adopted a resolution on the Definition of Aggression (Resolution 3314 (XXIX)). As the term ‘act of aggression’ is used alongside the terms ‘threat to peace’ and ‘breach of the peace’ in Article 39, the UN Security Council is not bound to determine the existence of an act of aggression to activate the Charter's collective security system and authorize the use of force by one or more States in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. In the view of the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission, the prohibition of aggression forms part of customary international law. Here again, however, the distinct legal significance of the concept compared to ‘use of force’ and ‘armed attack’ is of quite limited reach. Contrariwise, the concept of aggression has been of considerable importance in the realm of international criminal law since the latter’s inception.


1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Palmer Bloomfield

The United Nations at the time of this writing has emerged from a period of uncertainty engendered by the Soviet boycotts beginning in January 1950, into blazing prominence as a fast-acting agency for suppressing armed aggression. Many of the questions raised during the first four years of its existence concerning its vitality and effectiveness as the center of a collective security system have now been dramatically answered. Its forms have altered with experience, and by analogy to our Constitution, its action in response to the armed invasion of the Republic of Korea constitutes a precedent which may rank with Chief Justice Marshall's most momentous decisions. Whatever new directions the organization and its Charter may take in response to the dynamics of the world society they represent, it is indisputable that this new parlimentary form of conducting international affairs has conclusively proved its worth and its indispensability to the future of the international community.


Author(s):  
Ademola Abass

The term collective security in a general sense is given many understandings both professional and nonprofessional. The phrase is sometimes used to describe the organization of security on a “collective” basis. Often, it is used to denote the “collective organization” of security. While neither of these uses is inherently wrong, neither succinctly captures what “collective security” implies when used by international lawyers. In international law, collective security is a term connoting something more dense and intricate, and much more slippery, than the above more straightforward expressions. The notion of collective security, its premise, and objectives are deeply contested by states and scholars. It is universally acknowledged that collective security is today organized under the United Nations; however, regional organizations, which used to focus primarily on economic matters, have attained greater prominence in collective security efforts especially since the end of the Cold War. This article examines the definition of collective security, its features and objectives, the actors that have the responsibility for operating it globally and regionally, its various manifestations, its limitations and, above all, its role in future.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-367
Author(s):  
PAOLO PALCHETTI

Abstract:If the main merit of The Internationalists is to shed light, in a powerful and convincing way, on the transformative power of rules, the role of institutions – and in particular of the United Nations and its collective security system centred around the activity of the Security Council – does not come out of the book as clearly as it might. It is submitted that the decision to concentrate upon the rule – the prohibition to use force – while limiting the attention paid to the institution – the United Nations and its collective security system – is not without consequence, particularly given the strict link existing, in the common perception, between the rule and the institution. This brief comment will focus on certain ambivalences emerging from the book about the contribution of the United Nations, as a peace-enforcing organisation, to fostering the emergence of a New World Order, as well as its continuing relevance for preserving the effectiveness of the principle on non-use of force.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document