Between Legality and Legitimacy, a proposal for Judicial Review of Security Council Collective Security Actions in Light of Responsibility to Protect and Just War Theory

The Icj

The purpose of this article is to question whether the powers of the United Nations Security Council (SC) are subject to any limitation under international law, especially in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine. And consequently, which organism will be entitled to hold the SC accountable for its actions, and how that organism should do it. The first chapter of this article deals with the possible limitations of the SC, it considers both legal and legitimacy restraints to the broad powers of the SC. Additionally, we will explain how RtoP presents itself as a new challenge to the legitimacy of the SC. Chapter 2 discusses which organisms within the UN system, may be appropriate to hold the SC responsible for its actions. Finally, in Chapter 3, we will review the legal status of RtoP, and explain how the ICJ could use Just War criteria as a valuable tool for a judicial review process of SC decisions based on RtoP.

FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE: LEGAL CRITIQUE TO THE “JUS BELLUM JUSTUM” DOCTRINE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION THROUGH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Revista Juridica ◽

10.21902/revistajur.2316-753x.v2i59.4103 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2 (59) ◽

pp. 47

Author(s):

Henrique Jerônimo Bezerra MARCOS ◽

Gustavo Rabay GUERRA

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Just War ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Legal Analysis ◽

Just War Doctrine ◽

The United Nations ◽

United Nations Charter

ABSTRACT Objective: The paper presents a legal analysis of R2P in light of contemporary international law. It questions whether R2P is lawful as a just war (jus bellum justum) doctrine under international law, specifically under the general prohibition for the use of force pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. The paper first analyzes the just war doctrine in light of international law; thereafter, there is a study of the legal framework for the use of force in the United Nations Charter; and, in a third step, the study of the R2P in legal light as a just war doctrine. Methodology: The research is executed through a deductive approach, its scientific objective is exploratory, and its research technique is a bibliographical and documentary survey. The methodological limit is in a legal approach of the subject from a normative perspective, focused on the legal validity of the institute under international law. Results: It is concluded from the study that R2P has legal flaws and does not stand against United Nations Charter regulation on the usage of force, notably the norm that states that the use of force in international relations is an exclusive responsibility of the United Nations Security Council. Contributions: The study shows its pertinence as an endeavor into a strictly legal analysis of a complex and highly political subject of humanitarian interventions. Keywords: Responsibility to protect; humanitarian intervention; just war doctrine; United Nations Security Council. RESUMO Objetivo: O artigo apresenta uma análise jurídica da R2P à luz do Direito Internacional contemporâneo; questiona se a R2P é juridicamente válida como uma doutrina de guerra justa (jus bellum justum) sob o Direito Internacional, especificamente à luz da proibição geral de uso da força de acordo com a Carta das Nações Unidas. Para tanto, o artigo analisa a doutrina da guerra justa à luz do Direito Internacional; em seguida, estuda o marco legal para o uso da força na Carta da ONU; e, em terceiro lugar, estuda a R2P como uma doutrina de guerra justa. Metodologia:A pesquisa é executada através de abordagem dedutiva, seu objetivo científico é exploratório e sua técnica de pesquisa é bibliográfica e documental. O limite metodologia é uma abordagem legal do seu objeto em uma perspectiva normativa com foco na validade legal do instituto à luz do Direito Internacional.Resultados: Conclui-se do estudo que a R2P tem falhas jurídicas e não se coaduna com a normativa da Carta das Nações Unidas sobre o uso da força, notadamente a norma que estabelece que o uso da força nas relações internacionais é uma responsabilidade quase exclusiva do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Contribuições: O estudo mostra sua pertinência por se tratar de análise estritamente legal de um assunto complexo e altamente político que são as intervenções humanitárias. Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade de proteger; intervenção humanitária; doutrina da guerra justa; Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.

The Normative Status of the Responsibility to Protect after Libya

Global Responsibility to Protect ◽

10.1163/1875984x-00503005 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 317-341 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Marie-Eve Loiselle

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Legal Status ◽

International Community ◽

Legal Obligation ◽

Member States ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Normative Status

The responsibility to protect concept has evolved rapidly in the last decade but its normative and legal status is still disputed. This paper assesses the degree of recognition the concept has attracted since its inception and the significance of resolutions 1970 and 1973 for the transformation of the responsibility to protect into a new norm of customary international law. It argues that despite claims about the centrality of the concept in the decision to intervene in Libya, the language of both resolutions, and the statements made by members of the Security Council surrounding their adoption, indicate that member states did not consider that they were legally bound to protect the population of Libya. Consequently, the intervention in Libya has not promoted the development of a legal obligation upon the international community to protect the world’s populations against gross violations of human rights.

The Alternatives to War

10.1093/oso/9780198755203.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

James Pattison

Keyword(s):

Just War ◽

Just War Theory ◽

Economic Sanctions ◽

Military Action ◽

Comprehensive Account ◽

The Face ◽

Normative Issues ◽

Better Than

If states are not to go to war, what should they do instead? In The Alternatives to War: From Sanctions to Non-violence, James Pattison considers the case for the alternatives to military action to address mass atrocities and aggression. He covers the normative issues raised by measures ranging from comprehensive economic sanctions, diplomacy, and positive incentives, to criminal prosecutions, non-violent resistance, accepting refugees, and arming rebels. For instance, given the indiscriminateness of many sanctions regimes, are sanctions any better than war? Should states avoid ‘megaphone diplomacy’ and adopt more subtle measures? What, if anything, can non-violent methods such as civilian defence and civilian peacekeeping do in the face of a ruthless opponent? Is it a serious concern that positive incentives can appear to reward aggressors? Overall, Pattison provides a comprehensive account of the ethics of the alternatives to war. In doing so, he argues that the case for war is weaker and the case for many of the alternatives is stronger than commonly thought. The upshot is that, when reacting to mass atrocities and aggression, states are generally required to pursue the alternatives to war rather than military action. Pattison concludes that this has significant implications for pacifism, Just War Theory, and the responsibility to protect doctrine.

International Law, COVID-19 and Feminist Engagement with the United Nations Security Council: The End of the Affair?

Feminist Legal Studies ◽

10.1007/s10691-020-09440-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 28 (3) ◽

pp. 321-328

Author(s):

Catherine O’Rourke

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Care Work ◽

Gender Based Violence ◽

Seminal Contribution ◽

The Everyday ◽

The United Nations ◽

Gender Based

AbstractThe gendered implications of COVID-19, in particular in terms of gender-based violence and the gendered division of care work, have secured some prominence, and ignited discussion about prospects for a ‘feminist recovery’. In international law terms, feminist calls for a response to the pandemic have privileged the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), conditioned—I argue—by two decades of the pursuit of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda through the UNSC. The deficiencies of the UNSC response, as characterised by the Resolution 2532 adopted to address the pandemic, manifest yet again the identified deficiencies of the WPS agenda at the UNSC, namely fragmentation, securitisation, efficacy and legitimacy. What Resolution 2532 does bring, however, is new clarity about the underlying reasons for the repeated and enduring nature of these deficiencies at the UNSC. Specifically, the COVID-19 ‘crisis’ is powerful in exposing the deficiencies of the crisis framework in which the UNSC operates. My reflections draw on insights from Hilary Charlesworth’s seminal contribution ‘International Law: A Discipline of Crisis’ to argue that, instead of conceding the ‘crisis’ framework to the pandemic by prioritising the UNSC, a ‘feminist recovery’ must instead follow Charlesworth’s exhortation to refocus on an international law of the everyday.

Hukum Internasional sebagai Alat Interpretasi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1514 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 73

Author(s):

Umbu Rauta ◽

Ninon Melatyugra

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legal Research ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

The Republic ◽

Constitutional Tradition ◽

The Relationship

Tulisan ini ingin menjawab dua isu utama mengenai hubungan hukum internasional dan pengujian undang-undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi RI (MKRI). Isu pertama adalah legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai alat interpretasi dalam pengujian undang-undang, sedangkan isu kedua adalah urgensi penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MKRI. Tulisan ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang menggunakan pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan historis dalam menjelaskan perkembangan pengujian undang-undang di Indonesia sekaligus menemukan legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional oleh MK RI. Kesimpulan dari tulisan ini menegaskan bahwa hukum internasional memiliki sumbangsih yang penting dalam perannya sebagai alat interpretasi dalam proses pengujian undang-undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi, khususnya terkait hak asasi manusia. Justifikasi keabsahan praktik penggunaan hukum internasional tersebut ditarik dari tradisi ketatanegaraan yang secara implisit dikehendaki UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Manfaat positif yang diberikan hukum internasional nyatanya harus disertai juga dengan penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MK RI supaya hukum internasional dapat digunakan secara tepat. Pembahasan dalam tulisan ini dibagi ke dalam empat sub bahasan inti yakni, pengujian undang-undang, penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai the interpretative tool dalam pengujian undang-undang oleh MK, legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai the interpretative tool dalam pengujian undang-undang, pentingnya penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MK.This article intentionally answers two principal issues regarding the relationship between international law and judicial review by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The first issue is the legitimacy of international use as an interpretative tool in judicial review. The second issue talks about the necessity of urgent international law mastery by the Constitutional Court’s judges. This legal research utilizes both a conceptual approach and a historical approach to explain the development of judicial review in Indonesia, and to find legitimacy of international law by the Constitutional Court. The analysis in this article affirms that international law positively contributes as an interpretative tool in judicial review by the Constitutional Court, particularly pertaining to human rights. A justification of a legitimate international law use is withdrawn from constitutional tradition which is implicitly desired by the Indonesian Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Since international law has provided better insights into norms, a mastery of international law should be encouraged. There are four main discussions in this article: judicial review, application of international law in judicial review process, legitimacy of international law application in judicial review, and the importance of international law mastering by Constitutional Court judges.

Keeping international law international, a reflection on Anthea Roberts’ “is international law international?”

Moscow Journal of International Law ◽

10.24833/0869-0049-2019-4-6-17 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 6-17

Author(s):

D. K. Labin ◽

T. Potier

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Comparative Studies ◽

Fragmentation Of International Law

Law Students ◽

Law Schools ◽

Oxford University ◽

To Come ◽

INTRODUCTION. Occasionally a book appears which has a significant impact on the scholarly community. A fine example of this is the work considered here by the Australian international lawyer, Anthea Roberts. Until very recently, comparative studies on international law were rare. However, as international law further develops and widens, so special attention will need to be paid to ensure that international law students are, to a greater extent, taught the same material and in the same way. As municipal systems of law became more mature, so doctrine and jurisprudence began to diverge. International law has now entered such a phase in its development and, in this excellent book, Dr. Roberts asks a series of very important questions: exactly what is taking place, what are the factors that are driving these processes, is such to be welcomed, is it unstoppable and where do we go from here?MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article reflects on Anthea Roberts’ book “Is International Law International?” (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017). The authors of the article consider the contribution of the monograph to legal science, particularly with its interest in a revived Comparative International Law.RESEARCH RESULTS. The view of the authors of the article is that Anthea Roberts’ book is a work of profound significance, which will, hopefully, inspire additional research in the field of Comparative International Law in years to come.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Comparative International Law is a relatively neglected field in International Law. Without question, the international legal academy (from the elite law schools of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) emphasises different things both in its scholarly writings and pedagogy. This needs to be given greater attention, even if, at least for now, it cannot be entirely arrested; so that the much-feared fragmentation of international law into not only separate fields and standards, but also in terms of agreeing on its content and application, is minimised.

11. Use of force

International Law Concentrate ◽

10.1093/he/9780198840978.003.0011 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 144-159

Author(s):

Ilias Bantekas ◽

Efthymios Papastavridis

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Use Of Force ◽

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 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.

Introduction

10.1093/oso/9780190202903.003.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Fernando R. Tesón ◽

Bas van der Vossen

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Just War ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Just War Theory ◽

Self Defense ◽

Collective Self

We introduce general concepts of just war theory and describe different kinds of war: national self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention. After laying down the conditions for the justification of humanitarian intervention, we highlight some of our differences. We conclude with an outline of the international law of use of force and some jurisprudential themes that bear on the current humanitarian intervention debate.

RECONCEPTUALISING THE LEGAL RESPONSE TO FOREIGN FIGHTERS

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589319000447 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 69 (1) ◽

pp. 103-134

Author(s):

John Ip

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Legal Response ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Syrian Civil War ◽

Domestic Legislation ◽

Foreign Fighters

AbstractThe Syrian civil war has highlighted the phenomenon of foreign fighting, in which individuals leave their home State to join an armed conflict overseas. The predominant paradigm for regulating foreign fighting, centred on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178, is based on counterterrorism, which in essence treats foreign fighting as a form of terrorism. This paradigm is largely reflective of the domestic legislation of the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia. This article argues that this approach is problematic, and that an alternative paradigm based on the international law of neutrality and related domestic legislation provides a better means for regulating foreign fighting.

What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/3109844 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 97 (3) ◽

pp. 590-598 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Richard A. Falk

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Security Council ◽

Sovereign State ◽

Un Security Council ◽

Inspection Process ◽

The United Nations ◽

The Relationship

President George W. Bush historically challenged the United Nations Security Council when he uttered some memorable words in the course of his September 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly: “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” In the aftermath of the Iraq war there are at least two answers to this question. The answer of the U.S. government would be to suggest that the United Nations turned out to be irrelevant due to its failure to endorse recourse to war against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The answer of those who opposed the war is that the UN Security Council served the purpose of its founding by its refusal to endorse recourse to a war that could not be persuasively reconciled with the UN Charter and international law. This difference of assessment is not just factual, whether Iraq was a threat and whether the inspection process was succeeding at a reasonable pace; it was also conceptual, even jurisprudential. The resolution of this latter debate is likely to shape the future role of the United Nations, as well as influence the attitude of the most powerful sovereign state as to the relationship between international law generally and the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy.