DOCSLIB.ORG

Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific Working Paper No. 2 Program on the Protection of Civilians Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Charles T. Hunt [email protected] October 2009 Copyright © 2009 Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Building 91, 54 Walcott Street University of Queensland St Lucia QLD 4072 Australia Tel: +61 07 3346 6443 Fax: +61 07 3346 6445 Email: [email protected] POC & R2P: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific 2 Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 2 Introduction 5 2.1 The Responsibility to Protect 5 2.2 Protection of Civilians 7 2.3 Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect 8 2.4 Asia-Pacific 9 3. Security Council Open Debates on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict – May 2008 – January 2009 10 3.1 China 10 3.2 Indonesia 12 3.3 Viet Nam 14 3.4 Australia 16 3.5 Japan 17 3.6 Myanmar 18 4 Summary 20 5 Conclusion 23 6 References 25 POC & R2P: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific 3 1. Executive Summary Governments in the Asia-Pacific are often referred to as skeptics or spoilers in conversations about deepening and harnessing global consensus on the „Responsibility to Protect‟ (R2P). This working paper argues that, on the contrary, there exists a broad constituency within the region for moving the principle from rhetoric to reality at the United Nations (UN). Based on contributions to Security Council debates on the protection of civilians in armed conflict (POC), regional states have been both receptive to and promoters of tangible measures to operationalise institutional mechanisms to prevent and halt mass atrocity crimes. Statements in the two most recent meetings are of particular significance given that they represent one of the last opportunities to gauge regional positions ahead of the forthcoming General Assembly debate on the R2P. In conclusion, I suggest that the Asia-Pacific region is much more receptive to the R2P principle than has hitherto been acknowledged. The first section of the working paper walks through the development of the R2P principle and the history of the UN Security Council‟s thematic interest in POC. The subsequent section unpacks and clarifies the relationship between the R2P and POC. The paper then proceeds to analyse the contributions of Asia-Pacific states to the two lattermost Council debates on POC, emphasising the significance of these statements for the institutional future of the R2P at the UN, as well as normative traction and increased ownership of the R2P in and by the region. Finally, the paper concludes by recommending the way ahead if Asia-Pacific states are to remain constructive partners in moving the principle towards praxis. POC & R2P: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific 4 2. Introduction “Enshrined in all major moral, religious, and legal codes, and not specific to any particular culture or tradition, the protection of civilians is a human, political and legal imperative that recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. It is a cause that unites us all in the responsibility to protect civilians from abuse, to mitigate the impact of warfare and to alleviate their suffering.”1 2.1 The Responsibility to Protect Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing are all too prevalent as the first decade of the twenty-first Century comes to a close. The fanciful belief that failures to protect civilians from mass atrocities is now a story of the twentieth century – of Rwanda and Srebrenica – is violently contradicted by the continued systematic violence against civilians today. In recent years, the international community has found common ground in the conviction that all states have a responsibility to protect their populations from these egregious abuses. Furthermore, that the international community must support states in meeting their responsibilities and, if the state manifestly fails, take appropriate measures to protect vulnerable populations.2 Since its genesis in the work of Francis Deng et al3 and subsequent development in the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty (ICISS),4 the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has travelled an extraordinary long way, in an unusually short space of time. Following extensive deliberations, the outcomes document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit captured the consensus reached by world leaders, unanimously adopting the R2P.5 Paragraphs 138 and 139 declared that: 138. Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, to help protect populations from war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organisations as POC & R2P: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific 5 appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out. United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has made a strong commitment to the R2P and has stated that the above consensus rests on three pillars: 1. The responsibility of each state to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and from their incitement. 2. The commitment of the international community to assist states in meeting these obligations. 3. The responsibility of United Nations Member States to respond in a timely and decisive manner, using Chapters VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace), and VIII (Regional Arrangements) of the UN Charter as appropriate, when a state is manifestly failing to provide such protection. Secretary-General Ban has vowed to „operationalise‟ the R2P and translate the principle from „words to deeds‟. He indicated that his support for what he describes as the „concept‟ of the R2P is „deep and enduring‟ but recognised that it is not yet a policy or reality. It should be noted that whilst many refer to the R2P as a doctrine or norm, and the Secretary-General himself refers to it as a „concept‟, I will use the term „principle‟ as I feel this better reflects the unanimous endorsement of the R2P by world leaders in the aforementioned paragraphs of the World Summit Outcome Document. The Secretary-General also recognises the „controversy and doubts‟ that the R2P generates.6 This reflects enduring misunderstandings surrounding the R2P. Despite the inclusion of R2P language in relation to the UN-AU hybrid peace operation in Darfur, as well as the labelling of the response to post-election violence in Kenya as the first instance of the R2P in practice, the principle‟s scope and meaning remains contested. On the one hand, some states and commentators continue to view the R2P as a threat to norms of non-intervention and sovereign equality; whilst on the other, some have argued that the consensus that emerged in 2005 constitutes a dilution of the principle, diminishing its deterrent value and reducing the principle to „R2P-lite‟.7 That being said, the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General argues that the R2P “represents the application of human security perspectives to a specific area of public policy that has long vexed publics and policymakers alike.”8 It is in this context that the Secretary-General submitted his report, „Implementing the Responsibility to Protect‟ to the General Assembly in January this year.9 It is expected that this will be the basis for further debate by the 63rd General Assembly. POC & R2P: Perspectives and Precedents in the Asia-Pacific 6 2.2 Protection of Civilians Despite an overall reduction in the quantity of armed conflict across the globe, the character and victims of contemporary warfare have changed dramatically. Saliently, the 2007 Human Security Brief affirmed that the targeting of civilians has become increasingly prevalent in the post-Cold War era.10 The reasons for this are not entirely straightforward, but involve a plethora of causal factors which are well documented elsewhere.11 In this light, „Protection of Civilians‟ (POC) has come to mean many things to many people. Often conflated with similar and overlapping concepts such as human security or humanitarian intervention, POC has its roots firmly in established and universal principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) as well as human rights and refugee law.12 In the midst of competing definitions, the concept of „Civilian Protection‟ should be understood broadly as the full range of activities that intergovernmental organisations, countries, international and local NGOs, and individuals can pursue to advance the legal and physical protection of civilians.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2005 World Summit and Peace Operations
    Peacekeeping_1_v10.qxd 2/2/06 4:59 PM Page 6 6 • ANNUAL REVIEW OF GLOBAL PEACE OPERATIONS operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Burundi, the mandate was implicit.12 Today, it is stan- Côte d’Ivoire, and Darfur. And they are likely dard language in every Security Council res- to arise again as long as peace operations con- olution that authorizes an operation where tinue to be tasked with performing two func- civilian lives are likely to be in danger. tions: protecting civilians and providing public This mandate for protection of civilians is security. These mandates create conceptual and part of a normative shift reflected in general operational challenges for peacekeeping, with statements by the Security Council13 and the not only military but also political, humanitar- Secretary-General.14 The Brahimi panel argued ian, human rights, and normative implications. that “UN peacekeepers who witness violence against civilians should be presumed to be Protection of Civilians authorized to stop it, within their means, in Since late 1999, no less than ten peace oper- support of basic UN principles.”15 The norm- ations—both UN and non-UN—have been ative shift is also reflected in the report of authorized under Chapter VII “to protect International Commission on Intervention civilians under the imminent threat of physi- and State Sovereignty, which introduced cal violence,” often qualified by the words, the “responsibility to protect” principle,16 “within capabilities and areas of deployment.”11 later picked up by the High-level Panel in its This builds on practice that began in the early report,17 and by the Secretary-General in post–Cold War operations and gained mo- his.18 The reference to a “responsibility to mentum after the tragedies of Rwanda and protect” at the 2005 World Summit19 was an Srebrenica.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trust Fund for Human Security, an Advisory Board On
    For the “Human-centered” 21st Century August 2009 Global Issues Cooperation Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 1 What is Human Security? 1 New Concept for International Cooperation other chronic threats as well as protecting them from sudden Since the end of the Cold War, the international community and hurtful disruptions in daily life. In light of coming 21st has experienced rapid globalization accompanied by the century, the report emphasized the perspective of focusing on economic liberalization and a marked progress of information the life and dignity of individuals in the context of technology. At the same time, this process has significantly development. deepened interdependence among the world, which brought At the UN Millennium Summit in 2000, Secretary-General substantial benefits to many people on one hand, and Kofi Annan presented a report with two key words: “Freedom widened the gap between the rich and the poor at both from fear, freedom from want,” stressing the need to tackle national and international levels on the other. the various global threats. Then Prime Minister of Japan, Today, as many as 980 million people are forced to Yoshiro Mori, declared at the Summit that Japan would subsist on less than one dollar a day. The massive and rapid uphold human security as one pillar of Japan’ s foreign policy, movement of people, goods, money and information and called for the establishment of an international encouraged transnational problems to spread, including the commission on human security to further deepen the concept. smuggling of people, arms and drugs as well as infectious Following then Prime Minister Mori’s proposal, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from Kosovo
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 41 (1999-2000) Issue 5 Article 7 May 2000 Reconsidering the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from Kosovo Julie Mertus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the International Law Commons, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Repository Citation Julie Mertus, Reconsidering the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from Kosovo, 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1743 (2000), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol41/iss5/7 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr RECONSIDERING THE LEGALITY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: LESSONS FROM KOSOVO JULIE MERTUS* For nearly ten years, human rights advocates tried to focus public attention on Kosovo. They issued report after report of gross and systemic human rights abuses in the troubled region. Nearly all of the reports detailed crimes committed by Serb civilians and Serb police against Albanian civilians.' They warned of escalating violence and impending forced deporta- tions, and implored intergovernmental organizations and indi- vidual countries to take preventative action.2 International policymakers had overwhelming evidence that the pressure in Kosovo was mounting and that an even greater human rights disaster loomed near.' Yet they treated the warnings as those of the boy who cried "wolf." Without the "wolf" of all-out war, inter- * Assistant Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University, author of KOSOVO: HOW MYTHS AND TRUTHS STARTED A WAR (1999). As of 2000, the author will be on the faculty of American University's School of International Service and may be contacted at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of the Pillars of Sustainable Development: a Work in Progress
    The Integration of the Pillars of Sustainable Development: A Work in Progress Hugh Wilkins* Sustainable development continues to be viewed as development, while the Panel attempted to apply a niche area of development, and is considered by sustainable development as a cross-cutting issue. many to be synonymous with environmentalism. At Neither approach, however, was successful in adopt- the international level, environment and develop- ing “sustainable development as a key element of the ment issues have not been effectively integrated with overarching framework for United Nations activi- one another and continue to be addressed on virtu- ties” as required by UN General Assembly Resolution ally separate tracks. This article examines how sus- 57/253. This article posits that a different approach tainable development has been recently interpreted, to integrating the pillars of sustainable development applied, and integrated at the international level. and applying the concept is needed. A framework The article examines the treatment of the concept of convention on sustainable development that pulls sustainable development at the 2005 World Summit together the various interpretations and applications and by the 2006 UN High Level Panel on System of sustainable development, and that adds coherence Wide Coherence, revealing that world leaders at the to international environmental and development law Summit segregated the three pillars of sustainable and policy, is suggested. La perception du développement durable comme durable les uns des autres, tandis que le Groupe a étant un domaine spécialisé dans le monde du déve- cherché à appliquer le développement durable de loppement persiste, et plusieurs le considèrent comme façon transversale.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations of the Japanese Government
    [Communicated to the Council Officiai No. : C. 775. M. 366. 1932. VII. and the Members of the League.] Geneva, November 19th, 1932. LEAGUE OF NATIONS APPEAL BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT ON TH E REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY Note by the Secretary-General : The Secretary-General has the honour to circulate to the Council and Members of the League the observations of the Japanese Govern­ ment on the Report of the Commission of Enquiry, which was distri­ buted on October 1st as document C.663.M.320.1932.VII. Series of League of Nations Publications .VII. POLITICAL 1932. VII. ne* 15 CONTENTS Page Le t t e r from t h e R epresentative of J a pan to t h e P r e s id e n t of t h e Co u n c i l ........................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter I. — Ch i n a .................................................................................................. 9 Chapter II. — M a n c h u r i a ....................................................................................... 14 Chapter III. — T h e I n c id e n t ofS e p t e m b e r i 8t h , a n d Su b s e q u e n t O p e r a t i o n s ........................................... 19 Chapter IV. — T h e N e w St a t e ...................................................................... 25 Chapter V. — Co n c l u s i o n s ..................................................................... 35 S- d- N. 2.880 (F.) 2.475 (A.) 11/32. Imp. da J. deG. LETTER FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF JAPAN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL Geneva, November 18th, 1932.
    [Show full text]
  • The Responsibility to Protect
    BACKGROUND NOTE The Responsibility to Protect Who is responsible for protecting people from gross violations of human rights? Emergence of the concept Debating the right to “humanitarian intervention” (1990s) Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community began to seriously debate how to react effectively when citizens’ human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The question at the heart of the matter was whether States have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the international community has the right to intervene in a country for humanitarian purposes. In his Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recalling the failures of the Security Council to act in a decisive manner in Rwanda and Kosovo, put forward a challenge to Member States: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?” From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect (2001) The expression “responsibility to protect” was first presented in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian Government in December 2001. The Commission had been formed in response to Kofi Annan's question of when the international community must intervene for humanitarian purposes. Its report, “The Responsibility to Protect,” found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom in the United Nations CM 6892
    The United Kingdom in the United Nations Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2006 Cm 6892 £ 13.00 The United Kingdom in the United Nations Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2006 Cm 6892 £13.00 © Crown copyright 2006 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to the Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax 010603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected] INDEX Preface by Dr Howells, Minister of State…………………………….…………… 1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….2 Part 1: Strengthening the UN ……………………………………………………….4 Before the UN World Summit…………………………………………………………4 UK leadership in 2005: the Commission for Africa and the G8 Summit……………. 6 The 2005 UN World Summit: the United Kingdom’s role……………………………7 The 2005 UN World Summit: the Outcome…………………………………………..8 The 2005 UN World Summit: Implementation ……………………………………….9 Development ………………………………………………………………….9 Peace and Collective Security………………………………………………..12 Human Rights and the Rule of Law …………………………………………15 Strengthening the United Nations……………………………………………19
    [Show full text]
  • A/Res/64/236
    United Nations A/RES/64/236 Distr.: General General Assembly 31 March 2010 Sixty-fourth session Agenda item 53 (a) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Second Committee (A/64/420/Add.1)] 64/236. Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development The General Assembly, Recalling its resolutions 55/199 of 20 December 2000, 56/226 of 24 December 2001, 57/253 of 20 December 2002, 57/270 A and B of 20 December 2002 and 23 June 2003, respectively, 62/189 of 19 December 2007 and 63/212 of 19 December 2008, and all other previous resolutions on the implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Recalling also the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,1 Agenda 21,2 the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, 3 the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development 4 and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (“Johannesburg Plan of Implementation”),5 as well as the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development6 and the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development: outcome document of the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus,7 _______________ 1 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by the Conference (United Nations publication, Sales No.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia for International
    IMPLICATIONS OF KOSOVO , ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW The Conduct of the Community of States in Current Secession Conflicts ∗∗∗ Heiko Krueger Abstract The objective of this article is to examine whether the current conduct of the community of states in the cases of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia has any implications on international law. This question arises particularly in the case of Kosovo, since many states have recognised its separation from Serbia. Can the conduct of the community of states be used as a legal precedent by other groups seeking separation, e.g. in Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Moldova, Spain or Ukraine? What if more states were to recognise Kosovo in the future? The focus of this paper will be to consider the implications of the conduct of the community of states on the interpretation of international treaties and customary international law. In this respect, the conduct of states in the cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August 2008 will also be taken into account. Keywords: territorial integrity, self-determination, secession, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, international law Introduction In many states, ethnic groups are demanding separation from their “mother state” by invoking the right to self-determination of peoples, which was originally developed within the context of decolonisation. This has led to a general discussion concerning the extent to which ethnic peoples, groups and minorities are entitled to rights to self-determination and, in particular, rights to secession. To date, the community of states has rejected rights to secession for these groups and supported the mother states concerned by upholding the principle of territorial integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • A/RES/61/16 General Assembly
    United Nations A/RES/61/16 Distr.: General General Assembly 9 January 2007 Sixty-first session Agenda items 47 and 113 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 2006 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.24)] 61/16. Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council The General Assembly, Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome,1 Recalling also its resolutions 45/264 of 13 May 1991, 50/227 of 24 May 1996, 52/12 B of 19 December 1997, 57/270 B of 23 June 2003, 59/250 of 22 December 2004 and 60/265 of 30 June 2006, Recalling further its resolution 60/180 of 20 December 2005 and Security Council resolution 1645 (2005) of 20 December 2005, Reaffirming the role that the Charter of the United Nations and the General Assembly have vested in the Economic and Social Council, and recognizing the need for a more effective Council as a principal body for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on issues of economic and social development, as well as for implementation of the international development goals agreed at the major United Nations conferences and summits, including the Millennium Development Goals, Reaffirming also the commitments to and emphasizing the need to fully implement the global partnership for development set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration,2 the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development 3 and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (“Johannesburg Plan of Implementation”)4 and to enhance the momentum generated by the 2005 World Summit in order to operationalize and implement, at all levels, the commitments set out in the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits, including the 2005 World Summit, in the economic, social and related fields, _______________ 1 See resolution 60/1.
    [Show full text]
  • A/RES/60/1 2005 World Summit Outcome
    United Nations A/RES/60/1 Distr.: General General Assembly 24 October 2005 Sixtieth session Agenda items 46 and 120 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/60/L.1)] 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome The General Assembly Adopts the following 2005 World Summit Outcome: 2005 World Summit Outcome I. Values and principles 1. We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005. 2. We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations and our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which are indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, and reiterate our determination to foster strict respect for them. 3. We reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration,1 which we adopted at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We recognize the valuable role of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Summit, in mobilizing the international community at the local, national, regional and global levels and in guiding the work of the United Nations. 4. We reaffirm that our common fundamental values, including freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for all human rights, respect for nature and shared responsibility, are essential to international relations. 5. We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect their territorial integrity and political independence, to refrain in our international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, to uphold resolution of disputes by _______________ 1 See resolution 55/2.
    [Show full text]
  • Unilateral Use of Armed Force and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention in International Law
    UNILATERAL USE OF ARMED FORCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Mohammad Taghi Karoubi* 1 INTRODUCTION Apart from the important provision of Article 51 which admits unilateral forcible action in the exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defence against an armed attack, the use of force under the United Nations Charter is intended to be monopolized by the Organization.1 This monopoly finds its expression in the provision concerning the prohibition of the unilateral resort to force by states in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter where, for the first time, direct reference was made to not resorting to force, which has a broader meaning than not resorting to war, the formula used in the Pact of Paris.2 The principle of the prohibition on the use of force or threat of force has been repeatedly stressed in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions.3 The principle, today, is not only a conventional general principle, but it has also become a principle of customary international law as indicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its decision in the Nicaragua * Lecturer in Law, Tehran, Iran. LLB, Tehran University, LLM. and Ph.D., Hull University (UK). 1 See H. Waldock, “The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law”, 81 RCADI, 1952, 455. See also H. McCoubrey and N.D. White, International Law and Armed Conflict, Aldershot: Dartmouth Press, 1992; I. Claude, “The Blueprint”, International Conciliation, No. 532, March 1961; Id., “United Nations Use of Military Force”, 7-2 JAC, June 1963; R.
    [Show full text]