scholarly journals The principle of preventing the threat of force in international relationsWithin the framework of the Charter of the United Nations: مبدأ منع التهديد باستعمال القوة في العلاقات الدولية في إطار ميثاق الأمم المتحدة

Author(s):  
AMIR HUSIN, YOUSIF ABDULLA ALMARZOOQI, FAREED BIN MOHD HASSA

The study dealt with the principle of preventing the threat of use of force in international relations within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations by stating the content of the principle of preventing the threat of use of force in accordance with Article 2/4 of the Charter of the United Nations and analyzing legitimate exceptions to the use of force in accordance with the provisions of general international law. In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the descriptive approach was adopted to analyze the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law and the international conventions governing the principle of preventing the threat of force in international relations and the views of scholars of international law. The problem of research is highlighted in the weaknesses of the Charter of the United Nations Force in international relations. The study concluded that the principle of preventing the threat of force in international relations was one of the fundamental pillars of the international legal order established by the Charter of the United Nations. The study reached a number of recommendations, the most important being the re-evaluation of measures to maintain international peace and security through a review of The Security Council acted by reducing the veto.

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin

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.


Author(s):  
R.St.J. Macdonald

Canadian lawyers and all those interested in international affairs will be pleased to know that the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly concluded on November 15, 1990 its deliberations on the report of the working group on the United Nations Decade of International Law (“the Vukas Report”) under the chairmanship of Professor Budislav Vukas of Yugoslavia (“the Vukas Committee”). The Vukas Report sets out the proposed program of activities for the first period of the Decade, being the period 1990-92, and represents another important step towards the implementation of Resolution 44/23 of November 17, 1989, and the fulfilment of the aspirations connected with that resolution for strengthening the international legal order. The Report was well received by the delegations of states to the Sixth Committee and on November 19, 1990, the General Assembly adopted by consensus the program of activities set out in the Report, the Decade thus achieving more tangible form.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-23
Author(s):  
Pierre-Marie Dupuy

Twenty years have passed since the author's delivery in 2000 of the general course of public international law at the Hague Academy of International Law, titled ‘The Unity of the International Legal Order’. That course was designed to combat the all-too-common idea that international law was in the process of ‘fragmentation’. It did so by developing a theory focused on the existence of and tension between two forms of unity in the international legal order: the formal unity (concerning the procedures by which primary norms are created and interpreted, and their non-compliance adjudicated) and the material unity (based on the content of certain norms of general international law, peremptory norms). Twenty years later, the time is ripe to revisit this theory to determine the extent to which it is still valid as a framework for the analysis of international law, particularly as an increasing number of ‘populist’ leaders very much seem to ignore, or voluntarily deny, the validity of some of the key substantial principles on which the international legal order was re-founded within and around the United Nations in 1945. When confronted with the factual reality of the present state of international relations as well as with the evolution of the law, one can conclude that the validity of the unity of the international legal order is unfailingly maintained, and that its role in upholding the international rule of law is more important now than ever.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Vladimir A. Jilkine

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.


10.12737/3468 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 117-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Кира Сазонова ◽  
Kira Sazonova

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 01008
Author(s):  
V. Upeniece

The Charter of the United Nations wasthought to establish a normative order, maintain international peace and security. According to the Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”[1]. However the Article 51 doesnot propose a legal definition of the conduct which is considered as an armed attack or the commencement of such an attack. It does not propose strict criterions for the use of force for self-defence. As a result different interpretations of this norm have been arising and continuing to change in response to new situations and threats.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Bode ◽  
John Karlsrud

Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states’ military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.


Author(s):  
Wilmshurst Elizabeth

This chapter describes the collective security system established by the United Nations Charter and focuses on the use of force. The vision of the founders of the United Nations—‘determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’—was to make the preservation of international peace a collective responsibility and to locate that responsibility in the United Nations and, in particular, the United Nations Security Council. States were obliged to refrain from the use of force in their international relations, and there would be no resort to armed force except ‘in the common interest’, as declared in the preamble to the Charter. However, contemporary security threats such as global terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction give rise to questions about whether the law is ‘sufficient’. The chapter then outlines the international legal framework and discusses some of the difficulties in interpreting or applying aspects of the law in the context of recent challenges to the international legal order. It considers whether this legal framework is still appropriate to deal with current security threats and whether the efficacy of the law is still recognized in the practice of States.


Author(s):  
Marina Mancini

This chapter explores how a state of war or armed conflict affects the relations between belligerents, between belligerents and third states, and the belligerents’ subjects. It begins by describing how a state of war arose between two states, along with its far-reaching consequences, in classical international law. The effects on diplomatic relations, trade relations, treaties, and contracts are highlighted. The chapter then considers the prohibition on the use or threat of armed force in international relations and its implications for the concept of a state of war as well as the consequences traditionally attached to it. It also looks at state practice regarding the creation of a state of war in the United Nations era and concludes by analysing the effects of an interstate armed conflict in contemporary international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document