Search Results
This article aims to reconsider the controversial issue of the lawfulness of unauthorised humanitarian intervention. After providing a definition of humanitarian intervention and outlining its legality under contemporary international law, it examines the most common arguments raised in the literature for the purpose of justifying unilateral humanitarian intervention. The analysis covers such topics as the powers of the UN General Assembly to pass resolutions on the use of force, the theories on implicit or ex post facto authorisations by the Security Council, the text of the UN Charter, customary international law, as well as an alleged conflict of peremptory norms of international law.
1 Introduction 1 The United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) holds the responsibility of upholding international peace and security. 2 According to the Charter of United Nations (UN Charter), the SC can play a significant role in resolving
The activities of the UN Security Council after the 11 September attacks provided subject for an extensive theoretic debate on the ongoing ‘transformation’ of international law. Whether and how much international terrorism constitutes a new (legal) threat and whether the current system of international law is appropriate to respond to these threats, has been analysed in many studies.However, another aspect also deserves an in-depth examination; two resolutions of the UN Security Council [1373 (2001) and 1540(2004)] imposing general-abstract legal obligations, including the obligation to adopt certain domestic legal norms, for all the member States of the UN. That is to say, for the first time, the Security Council assumed legislative powers, practically, for the whole membership. Nevertheless, so far the adoption of legislative measures remained rather exceptional, the issue shall not be left ignored. The study focuses on the basic question, namely whether the Security Council has the power to adopt legislative measures-on the established basis of the notion of ‘legislation’.
The concept of humanitarian intervention evolved as a subset of laws that govern the use of force and now, it occupies an institutional position alongside Security Council authorization and self-defense as a legitimate and legal reason for war. Humanitarian intervention and use of force both are highly controversial yet widely accepted. This paper will evaluate whether humanitarian intervention is legitimate under international law. Humanitarian intervention contradicts the United Nations Charter but state practice developments since the Second World War have made it legitimate under a number of circumstances. Those who have argued for its legitimacy cite international norms and state practice to support the assertion that the provision for military aggression is no longer what is enshrined in the UN Charter. The debate on the legality of humanitarian intervention indicates that it could either be legitimate or illegitimate depending on how one comprehends the construction, changing and representation of international law. It is certain that there are no definite answers to these questions. This uncertainty is now fundamental since the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is indeterminate. Discussions over this law have not solved this puzzle. It remains legal and illegal at the same time, with recent cases not withstanding depending with the circumstances. This paper evaluates the repercussions of this finding for the sake of the rule of law in world politics. The paper suggests that customary prominence that scholars place on compliance with international law is misplaced. The power of international law from scholars’ point of view comes from its capacity to shape the terrain for balance of political power in international relations rather than differentiating rule followers and rule breakers. International law should be perceived as a resource for state use rather than a fixed standard of evaluating behavior.
of states, the United Nations, as reflected in the Preamble to the UN Charter, had the primary objective of protecting future generations from the ‘scourge of war’, and accordingly sought to strictly limit violence between states. 3 This ambition is
, covering a range of issues. In response to one question, he said, [w]e oppose the wanton use of force or threat of use of force in international relations and believe that all sides should follow the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the basic
addition, a part of the elaboration of these norms was initiated by the Soviet Union itself. The basis of the international legal order after World War Two consists in the UN Charter, and the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation goes against Art. 2
influence over the political or military actions of a state, by planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression in a manner that seriously violates the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter: UN Charter). 14 According to the Rome
-unicef-historia-z-polska-w-tle [ Accessed 25 Oct 2023 ]. United Nations ( 1989, November 20 ). Preambuła Konwencji o Prawach Dziecka. (The Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child) . https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text [ Accessed 25 Oct 2023 ]. Walczak
certain programmes. Russia's war just about nullifies the significance of the international UN Conventions invoked by freedom of expression scholars: after all, the UN was designed to eliminate and prevent war. This is the first time since the UN Charter
