The Police in the Temple Order, Justice and the UN: A Dialectical View

Abstract

Controversy reigns over the Security Council. Was the Council entitled to authorize a United States-led coalition to make war on its behalf to oust Iraq from Kuwait, or to re-establish the Aristide Government in Haiti? Could it impose a peace arrangement, including a liability regime, on Iraq and to strengthen it by an economic blockade, originally set up for another purpose? Was the Council acting within its competence as it prevented Bosnia-Herzegovina from exercising its 'inherent right of self-defence' by an arms embargo directed at the aggressor and the object of aggression alike, or when it short-circuited the International Court of Justice by demanding the extradition of two Libyan citizens over rights accorded to Libya by an international treaty? Such questions have aroused the anxiety of international lawyers. But there are other questions, too. Is Ihe Council entitled to intervene in the government or misgovernment of States as soon as political agreement has been attained between its principal members that the matter raises a 'threat to international peace and security' under Article 39 of the Charter? This seems suggested by its enforcement action to counter Southern Rhodesia's illegal declaration of independence in 1965 and its reaction to South Africa's policy of apartheid since 1977. Yet, white oppression of a black majority remained a special case until the Council