1CharterViolations

The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs

Legal

United Nations Charter Violations

Rutgers Model United Nations

16-19 November 2006

Director: Jessica Altenor

© 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 [email protected]

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


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,

1Kelson, 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 2Ibid. 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


governmental, and spiritual means. 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.


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, “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.”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. 9 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.


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. 12 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.


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 17Arend, 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.


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 forty-

five 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-square-

mile 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. 20 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.


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. 25 Ibid. 26 United Nations Charter,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, Accessed 28 August 2006


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.


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. 32 Ibid. 33 Arend.


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.


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, code-

named 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. 40 “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>.


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. 45 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.


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.


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 non-

implementation 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. 51 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.


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. 54“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.


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.


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 world’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.


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 state’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


“international peace and security.” 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


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.


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?


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.


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., “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.

Henkin, Louis. The United Nations and Its Supporters: A Self-Examination. (1963)


Jessup, Philip C. Development of International Law by the United Nations. (1945)


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


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

Date post:	09-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	idia
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times