Search results
by three distinct features. First of all, the freedom of states to wage war or engage in other forms of armed force are severely curtailed in the UN Charter, Article 2(4) of which prohibits states from threatening or using force themselves except in self-defence. Secondly, the Security Council is given the power to undertake military measures in response to threats or aggressions. 2 Thirdly, a state’s right of self-defence in response to an armed attack only persists until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain or restore international
International organisations are a central component of modern international society. This book provides a concise account of the principles and norms of international law applicable to the intergovernmental organisation (IGO). It defines and explains inter-governmentalism and the role of law in its regulation. The book presents case studies that show how the law works within an institutional order dominated by politics. After a note on the key relationship between the IGO and its member states, it examines the basic relationship between the UN and states in terms of membership through admissions, withdrawal, expulsion, suspension, and representation. The debate about the extent of the doctrine of legal powers is addressed through case studies. Institutional lawmaking in the modern era is discussed with particular focus on at the impact of General Assembly Resolutions on outer space and the Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. Non-forcible measures adopted by the UN and similar IGOs in terms of their legality (constitutionality and conformity to international law), legitimacy and effectiveness, is covered next. The different military responses undertaken by IGOs, ranging from observation and peacekeeping, to peace enforcement and war-fighting, are discussed in terms of legality and practice. The book also considers the idea of a Responsibility to Protect and the development of secondary rules of international law to cover the wrongful acts and omissions of IGOs. It ends with a note on how the primary and secondary rules of international law are upheld in different forms and mechanisms of accountability, including courts.
This Chapter describes the collective security system as envisaged in the United Nations Charter. It deals with the legal basis of the Security Council’s powers and the conditions under which such powers can be exercised. These powers are then analysed following the two-fold distinction between non-military and military measures. Particular
the head of its director.82 Within a short time, USAID reported to the Special Group-CI that in Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, all programmes had been directed toward support of counterinsurgency efforts.83 The Kennedy team’s reorganization of military aid proved troublesome as well. As one of the outspoken Senate ‘internationalists’ during the Eisenhower years,84 Kennedy had long advocated a restructuring and reorientation of security assistance away from military measures and towards development aid. Early in his administration, the new President, in consultation
9 Decline and fall A significant change The launching of the war on terror in September 2001 was shaped by two immediate factors: the new imperialist trajectory adopted by the US from the end of the Cold War, and the specific form and character of the George W. Bush administration. Seeking to craft a new world order more conducive to US interests, Washington’s response to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11 was driven by military measures designed to expand free market democracy in the Middle East and to establish a credible willingness to use force in defence of its
Charter). Member States that are in arrears with their contributions for at least two years can be deprived of their right to vote (Article 19 UN Charter). States and other international entities that pose a threat to international peace and security may be subject to military and non-military measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter (‘Action with
strong aversion to using military measures to restore the independence of Kuwait, the Liberals were unable to offer an operational alternative.9 Prior to the Gulf War, the FDP had rejected German engagement in international security that went beyond UN ‘blue helmet’ missions. Peacekeeping missions were considered acceptable, but not peace-creating or peace-enforcing missions permitted under the UN Charter’s Article VII. The Gulf War prompted a modification of this stance. Though the Liberals insisted on a prior amendment to the Basic Law, they aligned themselves with the
State responsibility, it further explores the consequences, from the perspective of the use of force, of State involvement in terrorism. The most difficult questions probably concern the limits within which interceptive self-defence can be stretched and the admissibility of preventive military measures deliberately directed at eliminating potential but not yet immediate and concrete threats
threat to international peace and security and take military and non-military measures to maintain international peace and security (Article 39 in conjunction with Articles 41 and 42 UN Charter). The Economic and Social Council (Articles 61–74 UN Charter): can produce or commission studies and reports on economic, socio-cultural, and educational issues; can make
the admissibility of pre-emptive military measures deliberately directed at eliminating threats that are potential but not yet immediate and concrete. When States cannot be held responsible for the terrorist activities and the military reaction implies an encroachment on the sovereignty of other States, the State using force may be tempted to justify its action as armed reprisals or under the doctrine of state of necessity