I had an exam the other day and a topic came up about the UN and the use of power on the specific topic of Responsibility to Protect. This topic is very much misunderstood by the common person. Indeed, most people do not know that Humanitarian Intervention is not in actual fact mentioned in the UN charter, yet Inis Claude thinks that indirectly it is one of the major functions of the UN. Hence I thought I would discuss briefly in today's post the UN and the use of power.
When considering the use of force, most people turn to chapter VII of the UN charter. The UN sees the use of force of a state legitimate in two instances:
1) In the case of self defence (chapter 7, article 51)
2) If authorized by the UN security Council
In article 39, it states that the UN will authorize the use of force if it will restore or maintain peace and if the use of force is the best way of achieving peace. Article 41 however states that first sanctions must be applied to a nation, however article 42 explains that if the sanctions are inadequate, then the use of force can be considered. What is good about this system is that a intervention will be more likely to be legitimate because a state will have gone through stages of of diplomacy before the full use of force. This has actually prevented the use of force in various cases, where the diplomatic stage of negotiation and mediation (as discussed in Chapter VI) and where sanctions have come in place. It is also good because in a sense the UN has no self interests, instead it has a collective interest, which according to neoliberal institutionalists such as Robert Keohane suggest is more legitimate. Obviously this last aspect is only one sided, in fact modern marxists would suggest that collective interests aren't being supported, instead, the liberal norms and capitalist ideals are being propagated. They suggest this because in the end of the day it is the P5 members who make final decisions in most cases, and all P5 members share common ideals of Liberalism and capitalism to some extent.
The use of force is also legitimized by resolution 1368 on cases of terrorism. Indeed, it was this resolution which legitimized the invasion of Afghanistan. In short this resolution allows for a state which has been attacked by a non state entity(terrorist association ) to invade another state who is harbouring the non state entity if the host state is unwilling or unable to do anything to prevent further terrorist attacks. This is the resolution which allowed for Americans to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban government because it didn't do anything about the situation. I think that if the act of terrorism is to continue and the number of terrorist attacks is to grow, this is to be a very relevant and used resolution.
For me the most interesting subject about the use of force is Humanitarian Intervention(HI). As I mentioned before, the UN charter doesn't explain when the use of HI should occur, or anything of the sort. HI is legitimized today with article 39, for it reads that the use of force is legitimized in the case of bringing about peace. However, in legal terms HI doesn't make sense if one considers article 41 and 42 because of sanctions. For in a humanitarian intervention sanctions are generally not placed. In fact I cannot think of a case where such provisions happen. However, Constructivists like Alexander Wendt argue that HI is legitimate because its seen as a accepted practice of the UN which is used many a times. Indeed, Dag Hammarkjold, the former Secretary General explained to this affect that HI is present in the UN Charter in a hypothetical Chapter known as "chapter VII 1/2". He referred to this chapter as lying between chapter VI which describes UN traditional methods of achieving peace such as mediation and negotiation, and between chapter VII which as I have explained is the chapter which allows for the use of force. However, even if it is present in the UN charter in the hypothetical sense, it is not present legally. The reason why it hasn't been added into the charter is because of the mere difficulty of UN reform ( a subject I should write about in a post sometime).
Because of the non-existence of a clause or article which explains when HI should be used, there has been growing tensions between state sovereignty and the primary function of the UN to bring about peace and security. Hence in the world summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle was accepted by all the UN members. This principle allows for HI in the case of Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This principle is contested because there are arguments which suggest it should be used and not used in accordance with the UN charter. Indeed, there are those who think it shouldn't because it again clashes with article 41 and 42. Nick Wheeler on the other hand thinks that the R2P should act in accordance because the R2P is flawed. Wheeler thinks that the threshold for legal humanitarian intervention is too high. It excludes many atrocities such a state which neglects its people or incapable of taking care of a natural disaster, but then again, the threshold is so high to make sure that state sovereignty isn't hindered, unless its very necessary. I think that the UN charter needs to be reformed, not the R2P, this so that the UN charter doesn't clash further with documents and create ambiguity.
This is a very interesting topic, I do accept any views on this topic. Do you think that the UN should have the power to determine when the use of force is legitimate when in the end of the day it will be either America, the Russia, Britain, France or China making such a choice?
The Security Council of the U.N. is a travesty that controls the direction of the good intention of the existence of the U.N. That one vote from a Security Council member cast against the majority view can annihilate resolutions by said majority is contrary to democracy in whatever form. The Security Council should be abolished- but this is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThat is the point exactly- a country alone has the power to allow the use of force on other member states. In fact a country can make such a decision whilst the country who will be "invaded" does not have the same power- hence their sovereignty is degraded. This is not the only thing in question- in fact, when the security council declares the use of force, it is seen as legitimate, but as you have clearly stated, how can it be legitimate if its not even deomocratic? This is for me a really interesting subject which needs much debate.
ReplyDeleteArguably the reason why the permanent five have a veto power and a permanent seat in the security council is simple- the league of nation failed partly because the major world powers were not part of the organization. Indeed, the USA was not a member of the organization. This was partly because they had no reason to stay. By giving the major countries such a power, it means there is hence a reason to stay and hence the organization can last for more years to come.
Obviously this is not the best or fairest outcome- especially today when the UK and France are no longer as strong as they once were- and hence the security council has allowed for the balance of power of the time of 1945 to remain intact- and the UN doesnt reflect the reality of power today.
Reform of the UN is not just necessary when it comes to the security council, reform is needed through out. I will definately write a post on UN reform and the problems involved.
Thank you for your comment*
S.O