scholarly journals THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON SANCTIONS TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

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

Author(s):  
Aderemi Opeyemi Ade-Ibijola

The manner in which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is presently constituted remains the greatest challenge to the realization of the ambitions of UNSC permanent seat seekers. For the highly infl uential economic giants better known as the “middle powers”- Japan, India, Brazil, and Germany; and African leading contenders such as Nigeria, South-Africa and Egypt ambitions to yield the desired result, they must mandatorily secure the support of the UNSC Permanent fi ve veto holding members. In light of the foregoing, this paper examines the attempts to reform the UNSC since the late 1960s and the roles of the Permanent fi ve members of the UNSC such as Britain, China, France, USA and Russia regarding this endeavour. Specifi cally, it argues that the Permanent fi ve member’s disposition to this issue has been the major challenge to the much desired reform of the UNSC. The UNSC is the main organ of the United Nations (UN) that is vested with powers to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation in mid 1940s, this organ has been criticized for its undemocratic nature by member states whose region are either not represented in the Security Council (SC) or under-represented.  


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZOU Keyuan

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.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Griffiths ◽  
Sara Jarman ◽  
Eric Jensen

The year 2020 marks the twentieth anniversary of the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution (“UNSCR”) 1325, the most important moment in the United Nations’ efforts to achieve world peace through gender equality. Over the past several decades, the international community has strengthened its focus on gender, including the relationship between gender and international peace and security. National governments and the United Nations have taken historic steps to elevate the role of women in governance and peacebuilding. The passage of UNSCR 1325 in 2000 foreshadowed what many hoped would be a transformational shift in international law and politics. However, the promise of gender equality has gone largely unrealized, despite the uncontroverted connection between treatment of women and the peacefulness of a nation. This Article argues for the first time that to achieve international peace and security through gender equality, the United Nations Security Council should transition its approach from making recommendations and suggestions to issuing mandatory requirements under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. If the Security Council and the international community believe gender equality is the best indicator of sustainable peace, then the Security Council could make a finding under Article 39 with respect to ‘a threat to the peace’—States who continue to mistreat women and girls pose a threat to international peace and security. Such a finding would trigger the Security Council’s mandatory authority to direct States to take specific actions. In exercising its mandatory authority, the Security Council should organize, support, and train grassroots organizations and require States to do the same. It should further require States to produce a reviewable National Action Plan, detailing how each State will implement its responsibilities to achieve gender equality. The Security Council should also provide culturally sensitive oversight on domestic laws which may act as a restraint on true gender equality.


Author(s):  
Nizam Safaraz

Abstract             Every human being has the rights to be protected from discrimination by any party, especially the act of gross human rights violations. In order to prevent this, the Security Council has a function to secure international peace and security from threats to international peace. One of the case that is becoming an international concern is the human rights violations on Rohingya by Myanmar Military. In its implementation, the UN Security Council can intervene a country known to violate human rights of its people, however the Security Council's intervention caused a controversy that questioned the validity of the intervention by Security Council. Thus, the purpose of this research is to find out whether the situation in Myanmar is valid for the UN Security Council to carry out humanitarian interventions. Accordingly, this research also analyzes legal measures by the UN Security Council in dealing with human rights violations in Myanmar. Keyword: Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, Rohingya, UN Security Council


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document