Protecting responsibly: the Security Council and the use of force for human protection purposes

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

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.


Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

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 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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 346-374
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández

This chapter looks at the use of force and collective security. Today, the United Nations Charter embodies the indispensable principles of international law on the use of force. These include the prohibition on the unilateral use of force found in Article 2(4), and the recognition of the inherent right of all States to use force in self-defence found in Article 51. Finally, under Chapter VII, a collective security system centred upon the Security Council was established for the maintenance of international peace and security. A key debate over the scope of Article 2(4) is whether a new exception has been recognized which would allow the use of force motivated by humanitarian considerations. It is argued that these ‘humanitarian interventions’ would allow a State to use force to protect people in another State from gross and systematic human rights violations when the target State is unwilling or unable to act.


2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Österdahl

AbstractIn recent years the UN Security Council has entered the scene of action several times after a unilateral military intervention has already taken place. The Security Council has adopted comprehensive schemes for the reconstruction of the countries intervened in and has authorised both civil and military international presences. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of such recent situations, and Liberia is an example from the early 1990s. This article makes the argument that, through its resolutions, the Security Council contributes to the legalisation ex post facto of the unilateral interventions, whether it wants to or not. The Security Council is caught in a trap set by those who undertake the intervention without prior Security Council authorisation.The only way the Security Council could escape the retroactive legalising effect of its resolutions would be by clearly stating in the resolution its intention not to authorise the preceding intervention. Even then, it may be that the Security Council could not escape the power of its own practice. A persistent practice of adopting reconstruction resolutions ex post facto would carry greater legal weight than the professed intention not to legalise the preceding unilateral intervention.Still, authorisation ex post facto may be better than no authorisation at all.


Author(s):  
Gray Christine

This chapter discusses Security Council authorization of member states to use force. There is now general agreement that the original scheme of Chapter VII of the UN Charter is not workable, and that the UN itself will not conduct enforcement operations. Instead, the Security Council may authorize member states to take enforcement action, even if the precise legal basis for this in the Charter is not clear. The Security Council has not again authorized member states to use force against an aggressor state in the same way as it did against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, but it has authorized action for a variety of other purposes. This chapter then discusses the controversy over claims of implied or revived authorization of the use of force by the Security Council.


Author(s):  
Haidi Willmot ◽  
Ralph Mamiya

This chapter focuses on the conception and evolution of the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilians during peacekeeping operations from 1960 to the present. The chapter examines the normative and legal framework of the use of force to protect civilians in UN peacekeeping operations, with reference to Security Council resolutions and other bodies of international law such as humanitarian and human rights law. It considers Security Council practice between 1960 and 1999 and its emphasis on the concept of self-defence; Security Council practice from 1999 to 2007 regarding the inception and development of the explicit ‘protection of civilians’ mandate by the Council; Security Council practice from 2007 to 2011; and prioritization of the mandate in certain peacekeeping missions, specifically UNAMID (Sudan (Darfur)), MONUC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), UNOCI (Côte d’Ivoire), and UNMISS (South Sudan). Finally, the chapter describes Security Council practice from 2011 onwards and draws conclusions on impact that the protection of civilians mandate in peacekeeping operations has had on the evolution of the legitimate use of force under the UN Charter.


Author(s):  
Niels Blokker

This chapter discusses developments in operations authorized by the UN Security Council in the context of the rules governing use of force in international relations. It considers three elements surrounding criticism of the carte blanche nature of Resolution 678 authorizing the use of ‘all necessary means’ against Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait. First, the authorization has no time limit; secondly, it has an extremely broad mandate; thirdly, coalition forces were asked ‘to keep the Security Council regularly informed’. The chapter examines whether the trend towards more Security Council control of authorized operations has persisted. It analyses elements of the authorization resolutions adopted by the Council between 2000 and 2012 and their implications for potential UN responsibility. It argues that operational decision-making is outsourced to implementing states or international organizations but that there are cases when the UN may be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by the authorized operation.


Author(s):  
Ben Saul

International law has struggled to regulate terrorism for over a century, beginning with efforts to cooperate in the extradition and prosecution of suspects, including through unsuccessful League of Nations efforts to define and criminalize terrorism as such. Until 2001 most international attention focused on transnational criminal cooperation against terrorism, through the development of method-specific “prosecute or extradite” treaties (concerning, for instance, violence against aircraft or ships, hostage taking, or attacks on diplomats) but without defining terrorism as a general concept or crime. It may, however, be possible to qualify some terrorist acts as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Since the 1970s, there were ambivalent efforts through the UN General Assembly to develop normative frameworks to confront terrorism per se, which often came unstuck on the controversial issues of “state terrorism” and liberation movement violence. Greater consensus was achieved by 1994 with the General Assembly’s adoption of a declaration against terrorism. There appears to exist an international consensus that terrorism per se is wrongful, even if disagreement remains about identifying precisely what constitutes terrorism. The effort to deal with terrorism as such suggests that the international community views terrorism as more than its underlying physical parts, which are already crimes in most national legal systems and under certain transnational treaties. The special wrongfulness of terrorism is perhaps signified by its intimidation of civilian populations, its coercion of governments or international organizations, and its political, religious, or ideological aspect. Terrorist violence has also sometimes raised certain problems under the law of armed conflict and the law on the use of force, as well as occasionally attracted sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Terrorism was generally dealt with, however, through the application of general legal norms rather than through the emergence of terrorism-specific rules. After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, sharper international focus was brought to bear on the legal challenges presented by terrorism and counter-terrorism in numerous specialized branches of international law (particularly in the law of state responsibility, the law on the use of force, and international humanitarian law), as well as in the institutional practices of the UN Security Council and the impacts of counter-terrorism measures on international human rights law. By 2011 the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon even declared the existence of an international customary law crime of transnational terrorism, although that decision has proven highly controversial as not supported by state practice. Efforts to negotiate a comprehensive international convention against terrorism have continued since 2000, with disagreement remaining over the scope of exceptions. There is also now increasing debate about whether a field of international anti-terrorism law is emerging.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document