The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs
Legal United Nations Charter Violations Rutgers Model United Nations 16-19 November 2006
Director: Jessica Altenor
Š 2006 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model United Nations 2006. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 Background _________________________________________________________________ 2 The United Nations Charter ________________________________________________________ 2 Process for Charter Violations ______________________________________________________ 5 Peaceful Settlement of Disputes______________________________________________________ 6 Iraq and Kuwait__________________________________________________________________________6 Ethiopia and Eritrea ______________________________________________________________________7
Sovereignty ______________________________________________________________________ 8 Belgium________________________________________________________________________________9 United States and the Dominican Republic____________________________________________________10 Israel and Uganda _______________________________________________________________________11 United States and Nicaragua _______________________________________________________________11 United States and Panama_________________________________________________________________12
The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations ____________________________________ 13 Haiti _________________________________________________________________________________14
Current Status ______________________________________________________________ 14 Key Positions _______________________________________________________________ 17 State Sovereignty and International Institutions_______________________________________ 17 United States ___________________________________________________________________________17 Europe ________________________________________________________________________________18
Developed States _________________________________________________________________ 19 Developing States ________________________________________________________________ 20 Least Developed States____________________________________________________________ 21
Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 22 Summary___________________________________________________________________ 23 Works Referenced ___________________________________________________________ 24
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
1
Introduction The United Nations Charter set forth specific rules intended to help regulate the behavior of states, especially with respect to the use of force. These norms are generally regarded as rules of international law from the perspective of both treaty law and customary law. Since the conception of the Charter their have been many indications that the Charter has not been upheld.
These indications have occurred in many cases
throughout the world where the rules specifically laid out in the Charter have been violated. The Charter protects the sovereignty of each and every state. Yet, most often, when the Charter is violated, it is the fault of states violating another’s sovereignty. As the world watched the events of the Second World War unfold, the importance of state sovereignty – including its territorial integrity and political independence – became unquestionable. During the formation of the United Nations and its Charter, the Security Council was thus given the authority to analyze cases and suggest remediation. The threat of force, however, was meant to be a last effort utilized only after every possible effort to remediate the situation without violence had been exhausted. With this in mind, the Security Council would look into conflicts and complaints raised by member states and render an applicable resolution. Despite the Security Council’s authority, states still violate the Charter and fail to heed the stipulations outlined by the body to remedy the situation after being reprimanded for their actions. The United Nations has dealt with these violations in many ways. The Security Council has the option of using resolutions, domestic and economic sanctions, peace keepers, cease fire agreements, and the use of force thorough a coalition (only after other channels have been pursued).
Even with these multiple paths to coerce member states
into good Charter behavior there is no concrete way to stop the many violations that have been made against the UN Charter. The question arises in what happens when the UN Charter is violated and moreover, who is in charge of enforcing the subsequent consequences. The UN must
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
2
either enforce its resolutions to the violators of the Charter or find new means of action to keep member states in compliance with the Charter. If this fails to happen, the fact that states can violate the Charter and get away with it will only perpetuate into more states committing violations.
Background As the Second World War began to take its toll on the many states around the world, the major allied powers decided that it was necessary to establish another international organization that would be in charge of the management of international conflicts. This organization was an attempt to address the issues that its predecessor, The League of Nations, failed to deal with. In the spring of 1945, the delegates of forty-nine states met in San Francisco to draft the Charter of the United Nations1. In the Charter the delegates pledged their determination to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in [their] lifetime [had] brought untold sorrow to mankind”2. The UN Charter set forth specific rules intended to regulate the behavior of states, especially with respect to the use of force.
These norms are generally regarded as rules of
international law from the perspective of both treaty law and customary law3.
The United Nations Charter The origins of the United Nations and its Charter stem from the Atlantic Charter signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States and the United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Signed on 14 August 1941, this declaration sought to establish a better future for the world post ‘Nazi tyranny’ through economic,
1
Kelson, Helen. Collective Security and Collective Self Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations (1948). Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=9300 2 Ibid. 3 Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J. International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (1993) Published by Routledge London and New York
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 governmental, and spiritual means.
3
Essentially, the end goal of the two men
encompassed a world where all people can live free of fear.4 On 1 January 1942, representatives from all 26 allied nations came together in Washington DC. As a result of this meeting, the United Nations Declaration was created. This declaration has two major points that it is based on: (1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such Government is at war. (2) Each Government pledges itself to co-operate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.5
These two points have a major impact for continued evolution of the UN charter. From these points stems the idea that nations stand together and cooperate. Evidence of this is shown in the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943. Government officials from 4 states, V.M. Molotov of the USSR, Anthony Eden of the Untied Kingdom, Cordell Hull of the United States, and Foo Ping-sheung, the Chinese Ambassador to the Soviet Union, met and agreed that is if very important for governments to work together for the “maintenance of international peace and security.�6 The desire for peace throughout the world was maintained as leaders continued to meet and discuss the future of the United Nations. Through the next two years different bodies of the UN were created including the Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As these other bodies were planned and created support was still being sought from throughout the world.7 The first major talks toward the United Nations organization itself were August through October of 1944, the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Through these three months, representatives of the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States had discussions; as did representatives of China, the United Kingdom and the United States. These
4
"Steps to the Charter: Origins of the United Nations," UN Chronicle Apr. 1985, Questia, 23 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001688339>. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
4
meetings resulted in the four Powers creating numerous proposals for the creation of an international organization. Subsequently, as a result of the Yalta Agreement in 1945, the Powers resolved to create and International Organization aimed at working together and preserving peace as soon as possible. As a result, they called upon nations to attend the Conference of United Nations in San Francisco, United States on the 25th April 1945 to create such an Organization.8 The purpose for the timing of the conference to establish the UN was in relation to its hopes to establish peace. The San Francisco conference sought to outline the way peace would be shaped and handled post WWII. The end of the conference hailed the United Nations Charter and the establishment of the United Nations. On 26 June 1945 representatives of 50 states signed the charter. 9 The Charter established all principle organs of the United Nations and made provisions for violations of the charter. The United Nations Charter establishes certain principles that members are expected to follow. The first is the idea that collective actions must take place to prevent and remove threats to peace. Such actions must be done by peaceful means and within the principles of Justice. The UN also seeks to develop and maintain friendly relations between member states. Also, based on the principle of sovereign equality, all over its members are equal. Now, perhaps most important for future discussion of violations to the charter is the principle that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.â&#x20AC;?10 This refers to the invading, overthrowing of governments, and other political or territorial meddling that a state may undertake outside of permission and recommendation from the Security Council.
Further the Charter requests that the members of the UN provide
assistance when action needs to be taken within charter guidelines. Lastly, and also 8
Ibid. Leland M. Goodrich, and Edvard Hambro, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=refresh&offset=1&docId=8573369(Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1946) 19, Questia, 23 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8573353>. 10 Ibid 77. 9
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
5
importantly, under no circumstances should the UN intervene in situations “which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”11
Process for Charter Violations The Security Council was given the authority to maintain states adherence to the charter and invoke appropriate repercussions when necessary. The Security Council’s first task when problems occur is to determine according to Article 39 of Chapter IV, "the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Once the instance of a threat or breech has been identified, it is to decide, “in accordance with Articles 41 and 42” to maintain or restore international peace and security.12 Article 41 says that the Security Council can decide on measures to take that do not involve the use of armed force, in particular referring to economic and diplomatic full and partial severances of relations. 13
Article 42 provides provisions to follow if the non-
confrontational methods of Article 41 are ‘inadequate’ or deemed likewise. In such cases the Security Council may take action by certain forces.
Such action may include
“demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”14 Chapter IV of the Charter sought for states to resolve their disputes peacefully. Later Chapter VII outlined the way in which such provisions could be enforced. This gave the Security Council the authority to impart sanctions and use force in extreme situations. However, after the charter’s established, the world witnessed an epic standoff through the Cold War. With Veto power in the Security Council, the UN took a back seat to the developments between two major world Powers, the Soviet Union and United States.15 However, the UN was able to learn from this experience and develop it to help
11
Ibid. Ibid 35. 13 Ibid 160. 14 Ibid 162. 15 Finkelstein, Lawrence S., “ESSAY: From Seeds to System The United Nations Charter,” UN Chronicle, http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue3/0305p18.html, Accessed 22 August 2006. 12
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
6
the world in other ways. However, there have been numerous violations against the UN charter. The most important provision of the UN Charter on the recourse of force is Article 2, paragraph 4 which outlaws not only the use of force, but any use of force or threat that is against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.16 In the UN Charter there are four explicit exceptions to the Article 2 prohibition on the use of force: 1) force used in self-defense; 2) force authorized by the United Nations Security Council; 3) force undertaken by the five major powers before the Security Council is functional; 4) force undertaken against the ‘enemy’ states of the Second World War 17 .
Keeping these
exceptions in mind, there are still numerous violations of the charter by different states.
Peaceful Settlement of Disputes There are several areas of the Charter that are most often violated. The first of these is Article 2 principle 3 states that, “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”18 Violations to this principle occur when states go to war without exhausting all peaceful resolution options such as diplomacy and peace talks. See the examples below.
Iraq and Kuwait On 2 August 1990, in one of the most provocative moves of the post WWII era, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. The invasion force proceeded quickly to subdue Kuwaiti troops and to establish control over the state. The condemnation of Iraq by the world community was instant. United States president George H. W. Bush referred to the Iraqi
16
Kelson, Helen. Collective Security and Collective Self Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations (1948). Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=9300 17 Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J. International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (1993) Published by Routledge London and New York 18 “United Nations Charter,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, Accessed 28 August 2006.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
7
invasion as “naked aggression that violates the United Nations charter.”19 The Soviet government called for the restoration of the “sovereignty, national independence, and territorial integrity of the State of Kuwait.”20 The United Nations Security Council called Iraq’s action a violation of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. This provision prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”21 The Security Council adopted Resolution 660, which condemned the invasion and called upon Iraq to “withdraw immediately and unconditionally” from Kuwait. On 6 August 1990, the Security Council adopted Resolution 661, imposing sweeping diplomatic and economic sanctions on Iraq. This was the first time in its fortyfive year history that the Security Council ordered collective sanctions in response to a use of force. The Security Council proceeded to adopt subsequent resolutions in order to ratify the actions of Iraq. Finally the Security Council adopted Resolution 678, which authorized states to “use all necessary means to uphold the Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent and restore international peace and security area” if Iraq had not withdrawn from Kuwait by 15 January 1991.22 On 16 January 1991 Resolution 678 was upheld when an allied assault was launched.
Ethiopia and Eritrea Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
After gaining its
independence there were still disagreements about the territory of Badme, a 250-squaremile area at the border between the two countries. The governments of the two states were set up to iron out border disputes, but the situation was complicated by the political regime of Ethiopia. The Tigrayan ethnic group wished for its own autonomous state of Tigray.23 In May 1998 Tigrayan militia fired on an Eritrean patrol near Badme. This 19
Arend. Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 “Wars and armed conflicts: Africa Ethiopia & Eritrea,” Peace Pledge Union, 29 April 2002, http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/countries/africa/ethiopia-eritrea.html, Accessed 28 August 206. 20
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
8
attacked killed four Eritrean patrollers. Ethiopia accused Eritrea of aggression over the border and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean troops from the Badme territory. As a result both Ethiopia and Eritrea began to gather troops on their respective sides and started air attacks. The United States and Rwanda tried to start peace talks but those failed. Subsequently the Organization of African Unity tried talks but failed but Eritrea refused to withdraw its troops and Ethiopia refused to negotiate. In 1999 civilian deaths were reported.24 In October 2000, The UN deployed a peace keeping force. In December 2000 the two sides signed a peace treaty.
The border would be decided by an independent
commission. The UN monitored the ceasefire and in March 2001 agreed to extend the ceasefire.
Ethiopian troops withdrew as promised but Eritrean troops stopped their
withdrawal in protest of the UN’s boundaries.
Later in the year Kofi Annan
recommended that the UN confidence-building efforts be extended as the war had left political tensions between the two states.
In 2002 the international arbitration
commission gave its final proposal and gave the new maps to each country.25
Sovereignty This principle solely involves sovereignty. This is the principle most violated in the Charter. It reads, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 26 Most violations come in the form of one state interfering in the affairs of another without consent from the United Nations. Below are some examples.
24
Ibid. Ibid. 26 United Nations Charter,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, Accessed 28 August 2006 25
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
9
Belgium On 10 July 1960, a little over a week after the proclamation of Congolese’s independence, Belgium dispatched paratroopers to its former African colony.27 In the wake of military invasion the government of Congo had been rendered defenseless and was unable to maintain law and order.
The Belgian representative to the Security
Council explained that his government had “decided to intervene with the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of European and other members of the population and of protecting human lives in general.”28 Italy, The United Kingdom, France, and Argentina supported the Belgian claim that its operation had been legally justifiable. However, Tunisia, Ecuador, Poland, and the Soviet Union supported the view of the Congolese government that the Belgian use of force had constituted aggression because it had been undertaken without Congolese consent. Four years after the first Belgian invasion, the United States sent forces there to save the lives of numerous hostages from Congolese rebels. 29 Although statements by the American and Belgian governments stated that they obtained the approval Congolese government, many states expressed their disapproval of the course of action. In the state of Chaos, the new Congolese president appealed to the UN for help. The UN then created an army consisting of 10,000 troops.
The UN forces sought to
restore peace and order, stop the involvement of other states, help in achieving political stability, and only use force as a means of self-defense.30 These tasks were difficult to do as many different groups claimed to lead Congo. The leaders of the different claims independent areas of Congo asked the UN to oust the others, while Dag Hammerskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations, refused permission for this. As a result the UN was accused of siding with each of the different ‘claimed’ independent sides. In 1961, the Security Council gave permission for the United Nations to use force to prevent a 27
Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J. International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (1993) Published by Routledge London and New York 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 “United Nations: Congo,” History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_congo.htm, Accessed 24 August 2006.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
10
civil war. Later that year, three of the four groups claiming Congo’s independence met to form a parliament. They then asked the United Nations to help oust the last remaining leader claiming Congo’s independence, Tshombe’s ‘government’ in Elizabethville, Katanga.31 The leaders of the new parliament felt that as long as this outstanding faction still existed, there would be no peace in Congo. In August of 1961 the UN sent 5,000 troops to Katanga. Tshombe fled to Rhodesia. Dag Hammerskjöld attempted to meet Tshombe to talk, however he was killed when his plane crashed. The UN attacked Katanga three more times over the next several years. Finally in January 1963, Tshombe fled Congo permanently and Katanga was re-united with the rest of the Congo.32
United States and the Dominican Republic On April 28, 1965, a task force of four hundred American Marines landed in Santo Domingo, capital of Dominican Republic, where a civil war was already underway. Because no central government was able to maintain law and order, the Dominican Republic was in a state of anarchy. The reasoning behind the United States intervention, according to Representative Adlai Stevenson was that the police and the government could no longer provide safety for the Americans and other nationals in the Dominican Republic33. Britain and many other states were supporters of intervention for the purpose of protecting nationals, arguing the United States had been legally permitted to enter. However, Jordan and Cuba contended that a state was never entitled to use force for such purposes. On 14 May 1965 the Security Council made a resolution that a cease-fire occur immediately. This was in efforts to allow the International Red Cross to care and provide the much needed care for the wounded and dead. Meanwhile the Organization for American States (OAS) had sent its own peacekeeping mission. It wished to the UN to
31
Ibid. Ibid. 33 Arend. 32
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
11
suspend its work until the regional body had exhausted its options. France, Jordan, and Uruguay questioned to legitimacy of the OAS interventions34
Israel and Uganda During the summer of 1976, Israel landed airborne commandoes at Entebbe airport in Uganda. The July 3, operation sought to forcibly rescue ninety-six Israeli who had been taken hostage after a June 27 flight to Paris had been hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.35 Although Israeli government had not sought permission to enter Uganda, the commandoes entered into the stated and freed the hostages while murdering many of the Ugandan soldiers. During subsequent Security Council debate, Israel stated that its actions at Entebbe had been self-defense. Meanwhile, Italy, France, and Japan discussed the question of law introduced by the Israel and were unable to reach a conclusion.36 As a result, the Security Council drafted a resolution condemning the actions of Israel; eight Council members agreed to this resolution. However this resolution failed as the US and Britain vetoed the document. Instead they offered another resolution that condemned the terrorist from taking hostages. However, this resolution failed as well as it only had the support of six members of the Council.37
United States and Nicaragua On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice issued its first ruling in the recourse of the use of force since 1949 in the Nicaragua case. Nicaragua had alleged that the United States was aiding and abetting contra rebels. The United States, however, defended its actions by stating that it was simply taking action against Nicaragua because of its prior Nicaraguan intervention in support of rebels, the FMLN, in El Salvador.38 It thus endangered El Salvador’s rights under Article 51of the Charter to individual and collective defense. Accordingly the United States could provide military assistance not 34
Thant, U., “Public Papers of the Secetaries-General of the United Nations,” Colombia university Press, 1976, Volume VII, 70. 35 Arend. 36 Ibid. 37 "Straw Gets It Wrong on Israel," The Washington Times 31 Mar. 2003: A22, Questia, 25 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001702322>. 38 Arend.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
12
only in the form of direct assistance to the government of El Salvador, but also in the form of action against the territory of the prior intervening state, Nicaragua. The Court disagreed with the United State’s reasoning, however, they accepted the basic premise of the counter-intervention rule.39 In response, the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled that, “the US was in violation of international law for 'unlawful use of force' in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction.” United States and Israel voted "no" regarding a UN resolution "calling for compliance" with the International Court of Justice.40
United States and Panama On 20 December 1989, the United States launched an invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation “Just Cause.”41 Ten thousand American troops had taken control of the state and seized General Manuel Noriega for trial in the United States on drug trafficking charges, and had installed an alternative Panamanian government headed by Guillermo Endara42. In response, on 11 August 1989 Panama complained to the Security Council that intervention by the United States had worsened conditions. “Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Eduardo Ritter said the United States was conducting military maneuvers in disregard of established practices and procedures imposed by the 1976 Panama Canal Treaties.” 43 However, the US claimed that their actions were in accordance with the treaties. Panamanian Foreign minister the asked the Security Council to send observers to the area to determine whether the United States had committed acts of military
39
Ibid. “United States as a rogue nation,” Source Watch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_States_as_a_rogue_nation, Accessed 25 August 2006. 41 Arend. 42 Ibid. 43 "Security Council Backs UN Involvement in Central America; Panama, United States Again before Council," UN Chronicle Dec. 1989: 20, Questia, 25 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000119164>. 40
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
13
aggression. Despite accusations from both sides, no resolution on the matter ever came to be.44
The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations outlines the objectives and goals of the body which its members declare themselves as “determined” to achieve. These lofty objectives commit Member States to: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…45
This means that states are committed to protecting humanitarian interests. Governments that are in violation of human rights are in turn breaching the agreements made through the Charter. To fulfill the objectives set forth by the Charter, the members planned to: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples…46
Perhaps the most important phrase within the above passage is that concerning the maintenance of international peace and security. Member states can utilize the Charter as a call to action when they perceive international peace and security to be threatened; however, there are no strict guidelines as to what precisely constitutes such peril. This subjectivity allows the United Nations to intervene through the use of force outline in Chapter VII of the Charter in order to restore peace and security. Under the same provision of the Charter (Chapter VII), the Security Council is also authorized to use force to prevent or halt extreme human rights abuses.
44
Ibid. Charter of the United Nations. Preamble. About the United Nations: An Introduction to the Structure and Work of the UN. Accessed: 20 August 2006. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html 46 Ibid. 45
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
14
Haiti The island nation of Haiti is characterized by unrest for the entirety of its history. Such unrest manifested itself after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in a coup following his election in 1991. The chaos that followed entailed three years of governing by a military junta that exercised brutal control over the population. In 1994, the Security Council passed Resolution 940 which authorized the deployment of a multinational force to the island of Haiti. Clauses within the resolution noted that the Council was “gravely concerned by the significant further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Haiti.”47 The resolution also has a clause that determines that the occurrences within Haiti pose a threat to “peace and security in the region.”48 The United Nations thus determined that there was adequate justification for intervention by the provisions outlined in the Charter. By authorizing a force to Haiti, the United Nations demonstrated that there existed an obligation to uphold the Charter. This example also demonstrated that issues such as peace and security or humanitarian crises constituted violations of the Charter.
Current Status President George W. Bush historically challenged the United Nations Security Council in his September 12, 2002 speech to the General Assembly when he stated, “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”49 The United States government suggested that the UN’s refusal to endorse the war against Suddam Hussein showed irresponsibility in fulfilling the obligation of the Charter. Those who were against the war stated that the United Nations served its purpose by not endorsing a war that could possibly be detrimental and while also violating the UN Charter and international law. The initial American military response to the Al Qaeda attack and continuing threat was directed at Afghanistan, a convenient territorial target both because 47
Resolution 940 (1994). United Nations Security Council. 31 July 1994. Accessed 30 August 2006. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/312/22/PDF/N9431222.pdf?OpenElement 48 Ibid. 49 Falk, Richard A. What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention (2003) website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Access date: January 26, 2006.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
15
it seemed to be the nerve center of the terrorist organization and because the country was ruled by the Taliban regime that allowed Al Qaeda to have extensive terrorist training sessions. The Al Qaeda responsibility for September 11 was amply demonstrated and there was no significant international opposition the United States decision to wage war against Afghanistan and there seemed to be support from many of the United States’ allies. There seemed to be a lack of support, however, when the US decided to go beyond Afghanistan and turn its focus on to Iraq as well.50 Many critics around the world wanted to avoid the war and try to find an alternative in order to maintain peace.
The
justification made by the US was the right of preemptive warfare. It was argued that it was unacceptable for the US to just wait to see if they were going to be attacked and the preemptive strike would ensure the security of the “civilized” world. President Bush said in his talk at the United Nations, “We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers.”51 It was this statement with which the Security Council as well as many states disagreed and subsequently refused to comply with the United States and Britain’s demands for direct endorsement of war. The United States’ decision to go to war with Iraq was partially based on the failures of Iraq to cooperate fully with the UN inspectors. Iraqi obstinacy combined with the years of the United Nations Security Council nonimplementation of resolutions imposing disarmament obligations on Iraq after the Gulf War made force seem like the most effective option for the American government. Additionally, the US government perceived a threat posed by Iraq’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction52. Many critics see the United Nations failure to seek censure for the United States violation of the UN Charter as a result of the perception that America holds in the world community. The US is seen as the dominant state in a unipolar world and is thereby allowed exemption from legal accountability with respect to using force irreconcilable 50
Ibid. Falk, Richard A. What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention (2003) website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Access date: January 26, 2006. 52 Ibid. 51
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
16
with the UN Charter system; other states are held accountable unless they are directly protected by the United States.53 In July 2006 Hezbollah militants from Lebanon entered Israel. Three Israeli soldiers were killed and two others were kidnapped in an effort to negotiate a prisoner exchange. In return, Israel instituted navel blockades and bombed hundreds of targets in Lebanon, include the Beirut airport. Hezbollah retaliated with rocket attacks to northern Israeli cities. On 11 August 2006 the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for a cease fire between Hezbollah and Israel. The resolution called for “the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.” The Council, within the resolution, also created a buffer zone. The resolution also provides for the Lebanese government to control its borders and territory. Also, it says that all other states should seek to prevent the entry to Lebanon, “by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft,” arms or other related material.
Though the Council drafted a successful
ceasefire resolution, the secretary General Kofi Annan says, “I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the Council did not reach this point much, much earlier.”54 Aside from the two aforementioned conflicts, there are other numerous violations by member states occurring. Israel is in violation to multiple Security Council resolution calling for it to remove itself from Palestinian territory. These resolutions are Security Council resolutions, 1435, 1402, 1405, 1322. Turkey and Cyprus have also been an ongoing concern for the UN as turkey refuses to withdraw its troops.
Relevant
resolutions concerning this conflict are, 1092, 1117, 1251, 1303, and 1416. There are more resolutions concerning the conflict than those mentioned. Resolution 1359 calls for
53
Ibid. “Security Council Calls For End To Hostilities Between Hizbollah, Israel, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 1701 (2006),” United Nations, 11 August 2006, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm, Accessed 26 25 August 2006.
54
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
17
Morocco to release all those held since the beginning of the conflict.55 These examples of states not following UN resolutions are a few of the many that exist. According to the discussion of the UN charter above, it is imperative that UN states work together for the common goals of the UN.
Key Positions State Sovereignty and International Institutions Countries operating within the international schema hold the sovereignty principle, which asserts that the state has a natural right to exclusive authority over its territory and politics within that said boundary. This “natural” right emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia and has been considered a fundamental aspect of the nature of politics since this time. Derived from this principle is the notion that the state’s authority is legitimate and that there is no higher authority. Sovereignty theoretically means that states have the right to be let alone by other states, however, power is the currency of influence and more powerful states will intervene regardless.
States are motivated to infringe on the
sovereignty of other states to achieve policy objectives that promote the interests of the individual nation. The United Nations, as opposed to the state, is not a sovereign body. Only states can be sovereign in that the only entity that controls a state is itself. Ergo, the UN is only as powerful as the sovereign states that support it. The United Nations is not a super-national government and does not take sovereignty away from any state. States enter the UN to benefit themselves; thereby they would not contract themselves into an organization that prevented them from acting in their best interest.
United States The United States is an avid supporter of the United Nations. It strongly believes in the goals of the Charter and seeks to cooperate internationally. The United States fiscally manifests its support by acting as the largest donor to the United Nations. Still, 55
Zunes, Stephen, “UN resolutions being violated by countries other than Iraq,” 3 October 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417, Accessed 25 August 2006.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
18
the US has been accused on several occasions of violating the Charter through interfering upon the sovereignty of other states. This point was illustrated in the cases above pertaining to the United States in its dealing with Latin America, specifically the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Panama. The United States, maintains that it did not violate the Charter and has provided legal grounds as foundation for these claims. The US has access to resources that allow the employment of legal scholars who have the ability to examine and interpret the Charter of the United Nations to defend the actions of America as adhering to the guidelines set forth by the document. The UN Charter, like other formative legal documents, is in some areas ambiguous. While this provides many advantages in allowing the document to evolve and not constricting those who are party to the Charter, this also means that it is subject to interpretation. The United States can thereby read the Charter in a manner which renders its actions as valid within international law. Additionally, the United States is among the most powerful nations in the world. America touts the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strongest economy, the most advanced military in the world, and a highly stable political system.
These features ensure that the United States
possesses power in the international arena. The vast influence that America has allows the country to impinge upon the sovereignty of other states without recrimination. This is because the United States is so powerful, that it is questionable as to who possesses the ability to enforce any sentence imposed. It thus becomes the case that the United States complies with the principles of the United Nations Charter because these ideas coincide with those already held by America. This is understandable considering that the United States was a primary contributor to the document.
Europe Like the United States, European countries are strong supporters of the United Nations. In fact, many European states are described as being neo-liberalist in nature, meaning that they feel that world politics rely on international institutions. One example of an international institution is the United Nations, another is the European Union.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
19
These states see the role of international bodies as benefiting the states who are party to the organizations. European states focus on the prospects of absolute gain and the prospects of international cooperation. The UN is thus vital in assisting European states in achieving their aims. Since the United Nations is only able to achieve its goals by working through its Charter, upholding the Charter is important to European states. Still, states within Europe, such as Belgium, France, and Great Britain have all been accused of violating the Charter of the UN, primarily through infringing upon another stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sovereignty. Similarly to the United States, because European countries hold a relatively large amount of power, they are able to assert their will as they choose in order to achieve their interests. Since it tends to be powerful states that enforce international regulations and rules, this again begs the question as to who polices influential states when they violate the Charter. European states are thus expected to police themselves wherein it is again the instance that they respect the Charter and its ideals and are thus inclined to abide by them.
Developed States Developed states outside the United States and Europe share a similar position in that they too are in a position of power within the global system. This position makes them most likely to violate the Charter through infringing on sovereignty. These states act in the manner that will allow them to benefit most, and in some cases, this may cause imposition upon the sovereignty of another state.
Moreover, often violations of
sovereignty are committed by developed or western states (including the United States and Europe) in supposed defense of the UN Charter. The preamble of the Charter states that in creating the United Nations that members were determined to: save future generations from the horrors of war, uphold in human rights and equality, foster social progress, promote tolerance, maintain international peace and security, and allow for the advancement of all peoples. In attempting to achieve these objectives, states may inadvertently impose on that sovereignty of other nations.
Particularly divisive is the issue of maintaining
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
20
â&#x20AC;&#x153;international peace and security.â&#x20AC;? This concept is ambiguous, thus determining what precisely qualifies a threat to international peace and security can be difficult. For instance, this was the case in 2003 when US President George Bush said that by failing to authorize intervention in Iraq the UN was neglecting the purposes for which it was founded. The American government viewed Saddam Hussein as threat to international security and thought that the United Nations was obligated to act to eliminate this menace by virtue of the Charter.
Difficulty thereby arises in striking a balance between
upholding the goals of the Charter while also respecting the rights enumerated to states by the same piece of international legislation. Developed states tend to be democratic and thus tend not to go to war with each other. A genuine democracy has never in history gone to war against another democratic state as the parties instead seek peaceful solutions to conflict.
This means that
democratic, developed states do not usually violate the Charter by failing to come to a peaceful settlement to their dispute. It is generally only when conflict is encountered between a democracy and a non-democratic state that the situation deteriorates into violence as a resolution. Still, developed states usually attempt to employ methods of negotiation prior and only engage in forceful action when all means of diplomacy have been exhausted. Additionally, developed states (especially democracies) value human rights, justice, and equality and promote these principles within their societies. As such, these states are not usually responsible for committing egregious human rights violations that would be considered violations of the United Nations Charter.
Developing States Developing states are among the countries who stand to benefit greatly from the programs and support of the United Nations and as such they participate in, and respect the Charter. Developing states are generally in a position of lesser power and it is therefore possible that these countries fall victim to having their sovereignty violated. Many of these states have uncertain political climates in which more powerful states
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
21
sometimes feel inclined to intervene in order to gain an advantageous outcome. Also, many developing states are rich in natural resources that can be exploited lucratively by powerful external agents.
Least Developed States By becoming party to the United Nations, states bound themselves to adhere by the principles of the Charter and in turn, they reap the benefits of being involved with the organization. However, underdeveloped states have a multitude of various problems that lead to their incompliance - albeit sometimes unintentional - with the Charter. For instance, least developed states are more likely than other countries to be led by military governments or operate as single party systems. These forms of government are more likely than others to devolve into authoritarian, oppressive rule. Such an atmosphere makes neglect of human rights and universal justice more likely. Militaristic forms of government are also more prone to solving conflict through force, violating the tenet of the Charter that commits states to peaceful resolution of disputes. Also problematic, is that infrastructure within such states is generally underdeveloped including features such as border delineation. Ambiguity in regards to borders makes it easy for states to infringe on the territorial integrity of others. Underdeveloped states, like developing states, also face the potential intrusion of more powerful states interfering with state sovereignty for various reasons. Such reasons might include an interest in creating a favorable political atmosphere, preventing human rights violations, or safeguarding international peace and security.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
22
Discussion Questions • What were the goals and intentions of the UN Charter? • What states are currently violating the UN Charter? • What are the repercussions, if any, when the UN Charter is violated? • How can UN Charter violations be prevented? • Who should be responsible for inflicting punishment on the states violate the Charter? • How do you feel about the solutions that have been proposed for UN Charter violations? Are they effective methods? Why or why not? How can these solutions be improved? • Should changes be made to the UN Charter to include or exclude certain clauses so that fewer states will violate them? • Out of the numerous UN Charter violations, which needs the most immediate attention? Why? Which can be most easily resolved? How? •
What effects has UN Charter violations had in your state? Whether directly or indirectly, how have these effects been addressed? How do you feel they should be addressed in the future?
• What resolutions do you think have been most effective in preventing water pollution both in the past and present? • Can the Charter system work without adherence to its procedures and regulations by the dominant state in the world?
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
23
Summary The United Nations Charter was created to provide a forum for the nations of the world to discuss their differences. Essentially, the United Nations was created to keep the peace that started after WWII. In order to do this, all member states signed the UN Charter and the Security Council was given the authority to enforce the Charter. The Council, using force as a last resort, has many different things it can do to enforce the charter. These actions include various sanctions, peace keeping, cease fire agreements, peace treaty facilitation and lastly, the use of coalition forces. Despite these multiple options as use for enforcing the Charter, member states have and continue to violate provisions laid out in the Charter. Not to mentions the numerous states that have been addressed by Security Council resolution but still continue to breach not only the Charter, but their remediation resolutions as well. Such actions on behalf of member states prove to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations. With the current state of violations to the charter it is imperative the UN seek ways to better enforce its charter and bring its member that are in violation into compliance. It is important that it be an effort of all member states that truly believe in the UN and its purpose.
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
24
Works Referenced Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J. International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm (1993) Published by Routledge London and New York Briggs, Herbert W. The United Nations and International Legislation. (1947). The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Chakste, Mintauts. Justice and Law in the Charter of the United Nations. (1948). The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Falk, Richard A. What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention (2003) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Fenwick, C.G. The Quarantine Against Cuba: Legal or Illegal? (1963) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Finkelstein, Lawrence S., â&#x20AC;&#x153;ESSAY: From Seeds to System The United Nations Charter,â&#x20AC;? UN Chronicle, http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue3/0305p18.html, Accessed 22 August 2006. Henkin, Louis. The United Nations and Its Supporters: A Self-Examination. (1963) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Jessup, Philip C. Development of International Law by the United Nations. (1945) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Kelson, Helen. Collective Security and Collective Self Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations (1948). The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=9300 Leland M. Goodrich, and Edvard Hambro, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=refresh&offset=1&docId=8573369(Bosto
Rutgers Model United Nations 2006
25
n: World Peace Foundation, 1946) 19, Questia, 23 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8573353>. Liang, Yuen-Li. Preparatory Work for a Possible Revision of the United Nations Charter. (1954) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 Security Council Calls For End To Hostilities Between Hizbollah, Israel, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 1701 (2006),” United Nations, 11 August 2006, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm "Security Council Backs UN Involvement in Central America; Panama, United States Again before Council," UN Chronicle Dec. 1989: 20, Questia, 25 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000119164>. Sohn, Louis B. Enabling the United States to Contest “Illegal” United Nations Acts. (1975) The American Journal of International Law. Access date: January 26, 2006. website: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002 "Steps to the Charter: Origins of the United Nations," UN Chronicle Apr. 1985, Questia, 23 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001688339>. "Straw Gets It Wrong on Israel," The Washington Times 31 Mar. 2003: A22, Questia, 25 Aug. 2006 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001702322>. Thant, U., “Public Papers of the Secetaries-General of the United Nations,” Colombia university Press, 1976, Volume VII, 70. United Nations: Congo,” History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_congo.htm, Accessed 24 August 2006. “United States as a rogue nation,” Source Watch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_States_as_a_rogue_nation, Accessed 25 August 2006. Zunes, Stephen, “UN resolutions being violated by countries other than Iraq,” 3 October 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417