Reflections on the Indonesian Case

1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupert Emerson

The tangled affairs of Indonesia, twice thrust upon the Security Council, have served as an admirable touchstone of the principles, purposes, and effectiveness of the United Nations as well as of the policies of some of its leading members. Fundamental principles of the new postwar order were at stake. The Atlantic Charter had affirmed the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they would live, and the collapse of empires before the Japanese onslaught led to the widespread conclusion that the old colonial system was dead. These doctrines found sober and modified expression not only in Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, but also in the more general assertion of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and of the universal application of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The rights of dependent peoples, the validity of the doctrine of self-determination, and the possibilities for peaceful change all hovered about the Security Council chamber in the course of the debates on the two Indonesian cases.

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. H. McCormack

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that:Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of selfdefense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.International lawyers are still arguing about the scope of the right of self-defence in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Most of the arguments focus on the semantics of Article 51. Those who argue for a “restrictive view” of the provision emphasise the qualifying phrase “if an armed attack occurs”.


1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga

Many recent and important treaties contain provisions in favor of third states. The United Nations Charter, for instance, confers upon non-member states the right to participate in the discussion of disputes in which they are involved (Article 32); the right to bring such disputes to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly (Article 35); and the right to consult the Security Council with regard to the solution of special economic problems arising from the application of preventive or enforcement measures (Article 50). Also Articles 2 (7) and 81 have been interpreted and applied as conferring rights upon states not Members of the Organization.


Author(s):  
Patrick Reimers

The United Nations (UN) officially declared "self-determination" as a right of all peoples. Although the United Nations Charter (1945) offers some guidelines for the application of this right, there are major challenges in its implementation in the case of secessionist tendencies. Faced with this situation, the economist Jörg Guido Hülsmann, in his essay Secession and the Production of Defense, discussed not only the argument that pure private production is always superior to public and compulsory schemes, but also the current process of secession which, should always be justified against violent and coercive behavior of governments against (part of) its population. Hülsmann's ideas are presented in the contrast of the latest secessionist movements in Catalonia and Scotland, and in combination with Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order." The separatist movementin Catalonia is also analyzed based on the ideas of political scientist Margaret Moore, who advocates three types of normative theories that can justify the right to secession.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3(53)) ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
Valdo Bertalot

On the same day of the United Nations International Translation Day, the 30th of September 2020, Il Nuovo Testamento Greco-Latino-Italiano was published by the Italian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (CEI), a date chosen by the United Nations in honor of St. Jerome. The publication of the NTGLI presents two specific innovations: 1. at a ‘textual’ level for the most recent editions of the New Testament used (The Greek New Testament-5th Revised edition; Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, Editio typica altera; La Sacra Bibbia - Versione ufficiale della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana) and 2. at a ‘cultural’ level for the cooperation among different Christian confessions in Bible translating. In 1988 the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana initiated an extensive and in-depth revision of the CEI1971-74 Bible based on the most recent critical editions of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The new CEI Bible was published in 2008. Created for the liturgical use, with its 1971-74 edition the CEI Bible became the reference text, almost a new Vulgata. The NTGLI is a strategic tool for future translations of the New Testament in the 4,000 languages without a Bible translation, also aiming to contribute to the affirmation of peace for humanity, as stated in the United Nations Charter: “United Nations Charter, Chapter I, Purposes and Principles, Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security...[and] to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”


Author(s):  
Daniel Turp

SummaryIn light of the numerous secessionist claims witnessed by the international community, it is of great interest to ascertain if international law provides for a right of secessionist self-determination. An analysis of treaty provisions encompassing the right of self-determination of peoples, namely the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Covenants, suggests that the latter treaties consecrate an authentic right to secede. Such a right appears to be unhindered by any customary norm which would prohibit secession as a means of implementation of the right of self-determination of peoples, seeing that the practice of States is clearly divided on the issue of secession. It is submitted, however, that there is a need for more detached criteria with respect to the right of secession, its beneficiaries and its conditions of exercise and, consequently, for an acknowledgement, to the benefit of the international community as a whole, of the legitimacy of national affirmations and secessionist claims.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad R. Roth

AbstractThe United Nations Charter-based international order sought to reconcile the self-determination of peoples with the inviolability of state boundaries by presuming sovereign states to be manifestations of the self-determination of the entirety of their territorial populations. This presumption, albeit nationally rebuttable, traditionally prevailed even where states could only by a feat of ideological imagination be characterized as “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction.” But the international reaction to fragmentation in the former Yugoslavia—regarding both the initial “dissolution” and the subsequent struggle over Kosovo—called into question the rigid doctrines of the past and opened the door to secessionist claims theretofore dismissible as beyond the pale. Although no vindication of Russian intervention in Ukraine can properly be drawn from the Yugoslav cases, the Ukrainian crises help to surface the hidden dangers of an emerging jurisprudence that would allow previously inadmissible considerations—whether ethnic, historical, constitutional, or “democratic”—to compromise the territorial inviolability norm.


1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 838-840

The Security Council,Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nicaragua,Having also heard the statements of various States Members of the United Nations in the course of the debate,Deeply concerned, on the one hand, at the situation prevailing on and insid the northern border of Nicaragua and, on the other hand, at the consequent dange of a military confrontation between Honduras and Nicaragua, which could further aggravate the existing crisis.situation in Central America,Recalling all the relevant principles of the Charter of the United Nations,, particularly the obligation of States to settle their disputes exclusively by peaceful means, not to resort to the threat or use of force and to respect the self-determination of peoples and the sovereign independence of all States,Noting the widespread desire expressed by the States concerned to achieve solutions to the differences between them,


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
pp. 806-821
Author(s):  
Jean Galbraith

Criticism of the Security Council tends to take one of two forms: first, that it does not act enough; and second, that it acts unwisely. Although these concerns are quite different, they both have partial causal roots in the Council’s voting process. Article 27 of the United Nations Charter provides that Council decisions on nonprocedural matters require “an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.” The ability of any of the five permanent member stove to a Council resolution makes it difficult for the Council both to act in the first place and to pass corrective resolutions when existing resolutions are criticized as problematic. Indeed, the difficulty of undoing resolutions can make Council members wary about allowing the passage of resolutions at the very outset.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document