Recent resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, notably those resulting in the freezing of assets of individuals and organisations suspected of involvement in international terrorism, have had far-reaching consequences for member states and individuals. In addition, they might conflict with international human rights standards that are binding on the Security Council itself. In light of the limited possibility for reviewing the legality of these resolutions on the international level, individuals have recently begun to challenge their implementation on the national and regional level. This emerging practice raises the question whether states and regional organisations such as the EU can engage in such review and, if so, to what extent.
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the questions pertaining to the powers of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. In doing so it departs from the premise that an analysis of the limitations to the powers of the Security Council and an analysis of judicial review of such limitations by the ICJ, respectively, are inter-dependent. On the one hand, judicial review would only become relevant if and to the extent that the powers granted to the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter are subject to justiciable limitations. On the other hand, the relevance of any limitation to the powers of the Security Council would remain limited if it could not be enforced by judicial review. This inter-dependence is reflected by the fact that Chapters 2 and 3 focus on judicial review in advisory and contentious proceedings, respectively, whereas Chapters 4 to 9 examine the limits to the powers of the Security Council. The concluding chapter subsequently illuminates how the respective limits to the Security Council's enforcement powers could be enforced by judicial review. It also explores an alternative mode of review of binding Security Council decisions that could complement judicial review by the ICJ, notably the right of states to reject illegal Security Council decisions as a 'right of last resort'. The space and attention devoted to the limits to the Security Council's enforcement powers reflects the second aim of this study, namely to provide new direction to this aspect of the debate on the Security Council's powers under Chapter VII of the Charter. It does so by paying particular attention to the role of human rights norms in limiting the type of enforcement measures that the Security Council can resort to in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
This text is a revised edition and contains new material documenting the extensive and rapid innovations in the UN Security Council's procedures of the past two decades. It provides insight into the inside workings of the world's pre-eminent body for the maintenance of international peace and security. Grounded in the history and politics of the Council, it describes the ways the Council has responded through its working methods to a changing world. It explains the Council's role in its wider UN Charter context and examines its relations with other UN organs and its own subsidiary bodies.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains an important source of legitimacy for international action. Yet despite dramatic changes in the international system over the past forty-five years, the composition of the UNSC has remained unaltered since 1965, and there are many who question how long its legitimacy will last without additional members that reflect twenty-first century realities. There is little agreement, however, as to which countries should accede to the Security Council or even by what formula aspirants should be judged. Reform advocates frequently call for equal representation for various regions of the world, but local competitors like India and Pakistan or Mexico and Brazil are unlikely to reach a compromise solution. Moreover, the UN Charter prescribes that regional parity should be, at most, a secondary issue; the ability to advocate and defend international peace and security should, it says, be the primary concern.The United States has remained largely silent as this debate has intensified over the past decade, choosing to voice general support for expansion without committing to specifics. (President Obama's recent call for India to become a permanent member of the Security Council was a notable exception.) In this Council Special Report, 2009?2010 International Affairs Fellow Kara C. McDonald and Senior Fellow Stewart M. Patrick argue that American reticence is ultimately unwise. Rather than merely observing the discussions on this issue, they believe that the United States should take the lead. To do so, they advocate a criteria-based process that will gauge aspirant countries on a variety of measures, including political stability, the capacity and willingness to act in defense of international security, the ability to negotiate and implement sometimes unpopular agreements, and the institutional wherewithal to participate in a demanding UNSC agenda. They further recommend that this process be initiated and implemented with early and regular input from Congress; detailed advice from relevant Executive agencies as to which countries should be considered and on what basis; careful, private negotiations in aspirant capitals; and the interim use of alternate multilateral forums such as the Group of Twenty (G20) to satisfy countries' immediate demands for broader participation and to produce evidence about their willingness and ability to participate constructively in the international system.The issues facing the world in the twenty-first century--climate change, terrorism, economic development, nonproliferation, and more--will demand a great deal of the multilateral system. The United States will have little to gain from the dilution or rejection of UNSC authority. In UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests, McDonald and Patrick outline sensible reforms to protect the efficiency and utility of the existing Security Council while expanding it to incorporate new global actors. Given the growing importance of regional powers and the myriad challenges facing the international system, their report provides a strong foundation for future action.
This book examines one of the most important challenges facing the United Nations today: the effective and lawful use of force by or under the authority of the UN to maintain or restore peace. It makes a significant contribution to the content of the law pertaining to the use of force by the UN and provides guidance as to the likely future developments in the legal framework governing collective action to maintain peace under the auspices of the United Nations.
In this lively, fast-moving, and often humorous narrative, David Bosco illuminates the role of the Security Council in the postwar world, telling the inside story of this remarkable diplomatic creation. Drawing on extensive research, including dozens of interviews with serving and former ambassadors on the Council, the book chronicles political battles and personality clashes as it opens the closed doors of its meeting room. What emerges here is a revealing portrait of the most powerful diplomatic body in the world.
This is the first major exploration of the United Nations Security Council's part in addressing the problem of war, both civil and international, since 1945. Both during and after the Cold War the Council has acted in a limited and selective manner, and its work has sometimes resulted in failure. It has not been - and was never equipped to be - the centre of a comprehensive system of collective security. However, it remains the body charged with primary responsibility for international peace and security. It offers unique opportunities for international consultation and military collaboration, and for developing legal and normative frameworks. It has played a part in the reduction in the incidence of international war in the period since 1945. This study examines the extent to which the work of the UN Security Council, as it has evolved, has or has not replaced older systems of power politics and practices regarding the use of force. Its starting point is the failure to implement the UN Charter scheme of having combat forces under direct UN command. Instead, the Council has advanced the use of international peacekeeping forces; it has authorized coalitions of states to take military action; and it has developed some unanticipated roles such as the establishment of post-conflict transitional administrations, international criminal tribunals, and anti-terrorism committees. The book, bringing together distinguished scholars and practitioners, draws on the methods of the lawyer, the historian, the student of international relations, and the practitioner. It begins with an introductory overview of the Council's evolving roles and responsibilities. It then discusses specific thematic issues, and through a wide range of case studies examines the scope and limitations of the Council's involvement in war. It offers frank accounts of how belligerents viewed the UN, and how the Council acted and sometimes failed to act. The appendices provide comprehensive information - much of it not previously brought together in this form - of the extraordinary range of the Council's activities. This book is a project of the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War.
The aim of this study is not to explore all of the problems that arise today in security threats and conflict management, but to seek to understand the role of a particular institution--the Security Council--and the changes now affecting its modes of intervention and its interaction with international actors--great powers, regional organizations, non-state actors.
