Armed Intervention in States' Sovereignty
- Date: 2010-01-26 - Word Count: 540
Share This!
The UN Charter seeks to establish the The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as the supreme body for the regulation of international peace and security with what seems to appear as the sole right to authorize armed intervention.
There are limitations on the right to sanction intervention. 'Domestic' matters are not subject to its jurisdiction. It only has power if there exists a 'threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression'. However, the ambiguities in the meaning of these terms have meant that, in practice, the Security Council has determined the extent of its power. Each time intervention was mandated, the UNSC resolution has recited an alleged threat to international peace -thereby asserting the existence of a fact which gives rise to its jurisdiction. This capacity to extend the right to use a highly coercive power without external review would normally be highly dangerous. However, the existence of five permanent members who generally have different perspectives means that the Council is more likely to be accused of failing to use its power when it should rather than abusing it.
When NATO commenced bombing, there were many assertions that the war was legal. The actual arguments did not feature in the publicity for the war and no senior legal figures with a responsibility for giving independent advice were brought forward.
One of the justifications for intervention without The United Nations Security Council authority was 'veto nullification' -an argument as offensive as it is dangerous. The argument seeks to draw an analogy to 'jury nullification', where a jury refuses to convict because they do not like the law. There is no difficulty with the idea that this is a safeguard against iniquitous laws and that there have been a small number of benign examples of its exercise.
When members of the Security Council decide to go to war, they are not acting like a jury standing up against an unpopular law and protecting the accused from its operation. It is a government refusing to accept the decision of the 'jury' set up to decide. As it is the job of the UNSC to decide and there are rules about what counts as a decision (which are more generous than the unanimous or 10/12 rules), the NATO decision could be likened to half the jury deciding to go out and lynch the accused before the trial because they are sure that they will not get the requisite majority in the jury.
Of course, the instant case does not involve the deliberate killing of just one accused. It extends to the deliberate killing of large numbers of 'enemy' (they are not enemy until the war starts) and large numbers of innocent persons whose deaths are not intended but whose deaths will inevitably result from the action taken.
The essence behind veto nullification and most of the other arguments for not seeking Security Council authorization for the Kosovo action was the claim that the Russian and Chinese would unreasonably veto the humanitarian action proposed by NATO. This is essentially a counter factual argument, as the NATO states have never put a proposal to the UNSC in this regard. NATO might claim that they had private discussions that revealed that Russia and China would veto a reasonable resolution.
There are limitations on the right to sanction intervention. 'Domestic' matters are not subject to its jurisdiction. It only has power if there exists a 'threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression'. However, the ambiguities in the meaning of these terms have meant that, in practice, the Security Council has determined the extent of its power. Each time intervention was mandated, the UNSC resolution has recited an alleged threat to international peace -thereby asserting the existence of a fact which gives rise to its jurisdiction. This capacity to extend the right to use a highly coercive power without external review would normally be highly dangerous. However, the existence of five permanent members who generally have different perspectives means that the Council is more likely to be accused of failing to use its power when it should rather than abusing it.
When NATO commenced bombing, there were many assertions that the war was legal. The actual arguments did not feature in the publicity for the war and no senior legal figures with a responsibility for giving independent advice were brought forward.
One of the justifications for intervention without The United Nations Security Council authority was 'veto nullification' -an argument as offensive as it is dangerous. The argument seeks to draw an analogy to 'jury nullification', where a jury refuses to convict because they do not like the law. There is no difficulty with the idea that this is a safeguard against iniquitous laws and that there have been a small number of benign examples of its exercise.
When members of the Security Council decide to go to war, they are not acting like a jury standing up against an unpopular law and protecting the accused from its operation. It is a government refusing to accept the decision of the 'jury' set up to decide. As it is the job of the UNSC to decide and there are rules about what counts as a decision (which are more generous than the unanimous or 10/12 rules), the NATO decision could be likened to half the jury deciding to go out and lynch the accused before the trial because they are sure that they will not get the requisite majority in the jury.
Of course, the instant case does not involve the deliberate killing of just one accused. It extends to the deliberate killing of large numbers of 'enemy' (they are not enemy until the war starts) and large numbers of innocent persons whose deaths are not intended but whose deaths will inevitably result from the action taken.
The essence behind veto nullification and most of the other arguments for not seeking Security Council authorization for the Kosovo action was the claim that the Russian and Chinese would unreasonably veto the humanitarian action proposed by NATO. This is essentially a counter factual argument, as the NATO states have never put a proposal to the UNSC in this regard. NATO might claim that they had private discussions that revealed that Russia and China would veto a reasonable resolution.
Visit the Artur Victoria sites http://sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/ http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/n
n Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles
Recent articles in this category:
- Third Term - The Obasanjo Syndrome ... Ambition and the Place of God
I recently read a post in a blog (multibrand.blogspot.com) concerning President SBY of Indonesia amb - Black Veterans Still Not Receiving Their Due
With a Black President, many discussions have been re-kindled regarding the treatment of Blacks in v - Are Green Party Candidates Converting Voters?
Have you noticed that the Green Party Convention is hosting a few training sessions which include th - The National Debt: Young Americans Are Inheriting a Sinking Ship
The greatest fundamental weakness of the United States of America is its national debt. Debt weighs - America Must Return to Its Free Market Roots
The United States is the most prosperous country in the world. Its economy has been a constant engin - Policies Of President Obama And Democratic Congress Severely Undermine Job Opportunities For Young Americans
For Young Americans, this is the worst job market in decades. Despite politicians claiming we are on - The Virtues Of A Limited Federal Government And Why America Must Return To The Limited Federal Republic Laid Out In The Constitution
I consider the foundation of the Constitution . . . that 'all powers not delegated to the United Sta - Young Americans Have Largest Stake In Maintaining A Strong Military And Effective Homeland Security Policies
Americans are truly blessed to live in a country protected by the most powerful and effective milita - Why Hitler Wanted To Ban Guns
Whenever the name Adolf Hitler is mentioned one automatically makes a connection to the Holocaust, N - What Happened To The Mohave County Downwinders?
I always get a bit frustrated when I hear that the reason Mohave County was excluded from the Radiat
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Designer Shoes Come First In Global Poll Of Most Wanted Accessories
For both men and women, shoes have long been an essential fashion item. In fact, many women in popul - New US Ambassador for Indonesia Named
The US government has appointed Cameron R. Hume as the next ambassador to Indonesia, reliable source - 1984 By George Orwell
1984 by George Orwell In the book "1984" Orwell criticizes totalitarianism of all types and brings - Chaos Theory: Bush's delusions & Iraq's destiny (Part 2)
The classic counter-insurgency strategy of the US consists of the "ink-blotch" approach. This involv - Will Israel Attack Iran (Part 2)
In November of last year, I wrote an article speculating about whether or not the Israelis would tak - Rodrigues Island 'autonomy'
Rodrigues Island: 'Autonomy' The first few pages were qui - Obama Is Coming, Clear The Way!
"Obama biro, yawne yo!" (Obama is coming, clear the way)—Tens of thousands of cheering Luo "Tr - African Tribes
African Tribes In this article the economies and lifestyles of such African tribes as the Lele and - This Is Not Your Dad's Republican Party Anymore
Stock markets are strange because they reflect the sum total of all our hopes, fears and prejudices - How to Drastically Reduce our Foreign Oil Dependency While Saving you Money at the Pump
If you watch or listen to the news, discussions come up all the time about the price of a barrel of