scholarly journals Islands of Stability: new conception on the use of force regarding the implementation of protection of civilians

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 431-453
Author(s):  
Graziene Carneiro De Souza
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
New Method ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Stability Concept

This article proposes that the normative context of the use of force is being modified by a new way to implement the Protection of Civilians (PoC). Resolution 2098 of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) created a Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) with an unprecedented mandate to implement the use of force preemptively. In this context, the objective of this paper is to evidence that the FIB’s offensive actions resulted in the emergence of the “Islands of Stability” concept, which represents a new method to implement the PoC. In order to elaborate this method, a review of literature, news papers and official documents was undertaken, as well as interviews with MONUSCO officials. Its outcome is a significant update, adaptation and evolution on the use of force in peace operations that aims to influence the general debate regarding military intervention and PoC. Key Words: Use of force, MONUSCO, FIB, Protection of Civilians, Islands of Stability.Resumo: Este artigo propõe que o contexto normativo sobre o uso da força está sendo modificado por uma nova forma de implementação da Protecção de Civis (PoC). A Resolução 2098 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas criou uma Força de Brigada de Intervenção (FIB) com mandato sem precedentes para implementar o uso da força preventivamente. As ações ofensivas da FIB resultaram na emergência do conceito de Ilhas de Estabilidade, apresentando novo processo da operacionalização da PoC. Isso significa nova atualização, adaptação e evolução do uso da força em operações de paz; e, portanto, influencia o debate geral sobre a intervenção militar e a PoC.Palavras-Chave: Uso da força, MONUSCO, FIB, Proteção de Civis, Ilhas de Estabilidade.

scholarly journals Why Libya, but not Syria?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Caruso
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World War ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Compare And Contrast ◽  
World War Iii

In both Libya and Syria, an uprising of civilians against their rulers resulted in intra-state conflicts. Despite comparable circumstances, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has approached these situations in different ways. The existing literature tends to consider both conflicts in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Rather than compare and contrast the two conflicts in terms of assessing the effectiveness of R2P, the purpose of this paper is to examine why the UNSC authorized a military intervention in Libya, but not in Syria. This question arises out of the notion that similar conditions should elicit the same response. This research will present three main arguments to explain why the UNSC did not authorize the use of force in Syria as they did in Libya. The first is that the variety of actors fighting in Syria makes it difficult for intervention. The second is that the individual interactions between the permanent Security Council members and Syria further complicate intervention. The final argument is that the Security Council is upholding the foundation of the UN in preventing World War III.

11. Use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the United Nations Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years, the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

Part IV Activities of Organizations, Ch.9 Peace Operations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayal Anjali ◽  
Howard Lise Morjé
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
World Organization

This chapter discusses the origins of peace operations; their evolution alongside the growing international conflict management structures of the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations; and their core functions, composition, and efficacy. Although peace operations have roots in earlier forms of military intervention, their emergence as a dominant tool for conflict management is a distinct innovation of the same internationalist project that forged the UN. Their evolution lays bare the fundamental tensions between state interests and the liberal internationalist project of a ‘world organization for the enforcement of peace’, and their execution has defined the way wars are fought today. The chapter focuses on UN peace operations throughout because they are the modal type of mission in the world. It also discusses the use of force within peace operations, an issue of growing importance that highlights fundamental tensions in the authorization and execution of internationally-led efforts to maintain global peace and security.

15. Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Operations

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheena Chestnut Greitens
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Principles Of War ◽  
The Impact

This chapter deals with humanitarian interventions and peace operations. It first describes the transition from traditional peacekeeping to more ambitious post-cold war peace operations, paying attention to some of the difficulties of principle and practice that emerged in that transition. It then considers the politics of intervention and the constraints imposed by international and domestic politics, focusing on the politics of the United Nations Security Council and the impact of Western public opinion on humanitarian interventions. It also analyses the applicability of the main principles of war to peace operations and how these principles interact with political imperatives. The chapter concludes by discussing future challenges for peacekeeping and the effects of peacekeeping, taking into account the perspectives of the individuals and communities targeted by intervention and peacekeeping efforts.

scholarly journals How Can We Criticize International Practices?

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1014-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schindler ◽  
Tobias Wille
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Practice Theory ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

Abstract In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

scholarly journals ‘All Necessary Means’ to Protect Civilians

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-62
Author(s):  
Hanna Bourgeois
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Lower Limit ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
The Past ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Cascade Structure ◽  
And Control

Abstract In this article, I aim to explore the interpretation and implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council mandates authorising the protection of civilians (PoC) and, in particular, the meaning of an authorisation to use ‘all necessary means’ to protect civilians. Over the past two decades, the UN Security Council has repeatedly provided UN (mandated) peace operations with an explicit mandate to protect civilians. In doing so, it has typically authorised the use of ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the aforementioned objective. This PoC language has been subject to varying interpretations and implementations in practice and is therefore often considered ambiguous. The conclusion reached in this article is that PoC language is indeed vague, but that this is not necessarily problematic. It might even be unavoidable in light of the cascade structure in which the PoC mandate is placed and whereby the PoC mandate is interpreted and implemented at the various levels of authority, command, and control. What is problematic is that there is uncertainty and discussion about the limits to the use of force in the implementation of PoC mandates. After all, the formula to use ‘all necessary means’ cannot be regarded as a ‘blank cheque’ to use any amount of force. Therefore, I identify the upper limit to what UN (mandated) peace operations may lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with a mandate to use ‘all necessary means’. I also detect an emerging lower limit for what UN (mandated) peace operations must lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with such a PoC mandate.

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 How can we criticize international practices?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schindler ◽  
Tobias Wille
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Practice Theory ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document