Security Council Mandate Research Articles

The UN Security Council's Mandate and Its Future Development: An Analysis Based on Law Governing International Organizations

After the Second World War, the world adhered to an international order embodied by the United Nations, which regulated interstate disputes, upheld peace, and encouraged international cooperation in areas like economic development, justice, children's welfare, and food security. One of the most important United Nations bodies is the Security Council, which has the authority to propose binding resolutions to uphold international peace and security. Some contend that the current United Nations model has only played a minimal and limited role, despite the fact that the United Nations was initially founded to achieve long-lasting global peace through cooperation. Their concerns include the legality of Council resolutions, the abuse of the veto, and its unfair consequences, among other things. The normative analysis of United Nations conventions and some Security Council regulatory documents is the primary method used to discuss both of these problems in this article. The paper makes the argument that even though the Security Council has been "paralyzed" for a while in incidents like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it has at least given countries the opportunity for negotiation and has significantly contributed to ensuring the most stable possible international social order. In order to accomplish the objective of maintaining global security and peace, reform may lead to the Council's jurisdiction being further expanded or the duties of the other United Nations bodies being increased.

UN Security Council Sanctions and Mediation in Libya

Abstract The UN frequently employs sanctions on the same conflicts where it attempts mediation. While both efforts carry a UN stamp, they follow different political logics that are not always coherent with each other: sanctions are enacted by the UN Security Council, while mediation is led by a special representative/envoy of the UN Secretary-General, often on the basis of a Security Council mandate. This article explores two UN interventions in Libya that combined mediation with mandatory sanctions: the conflict leading to the overthrow of the Muammar Qaddafi regime (2011) and the civil war that ensued when the country was split between the first elected parliament and its successor (2014–2015). The Libyan case illustrates that the coherence of mediation and sanctions ultimately depends on the UN Security Council unity of purpose.

Responsibility for war crimes in the activities of international criminal tribunals

The main goal of this article is to research the legal issues of responsibility for war crimes in the activities of international criminal tribunals. The Nuremberg Tribunal also introduced a separate concept of “war crimes”, which is an important step in bringing war criminals to justice. It should be noted that the Nuremberg and subsequent tribunals are international both in terms of their legal source and in terms of their jurisdiction. The question of bringing to justice those responsible for war crimes raises not only scientific but also practical problems. These problems have become apparent in the work of the international criminal tribunals. Problems arise in the logistical, financial spheres, the search for the accused, evidence, collection of documents, etc. These issues are among these problems, but the main obstacle is the real support by states of the activities of these tribunals, the timely implementation of decisions and decisions of the tribunals. One of the common negative features of the tribunals in both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda was that it was impossible to bring to justice those responsible for international crimes in a timely manner, and trials were lengthy. The International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which do not impose the death penalty, have a UN Security Council mandate, which distinguishes them from classical international tribunals established under an international treaty. Keywords: war crimes, tribunal, Nuremberg, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, jurisdiction, responsibility, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, Geneva Conventions, Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Court.

Международно-правовые рамки участия региональных организаций в операциях по поддержанию мира

The article analyzes the international legal framework for the participation of regional organizations in peacekeeping operations. Based on a review of scientific literature, the author examines the evolution of the legal approaches of the United Nations to international peacekeeping operations, considering the changes in their content in recent decades. The author explores the coupling between the peacekeeping mechanisms of the UN and regional organizations. The main object of the study is the peacekeeping activity of the Collective Security Treaty Organization based on the relevant international treaty. The article is an attempt to assess the political capabilities of a regional organization to expand its influence in the world using formal legal research methods. Three possible formats of a peacekeeping operation based on the Agreement on Peacekeeping Activities of the CSTO are revealed by the author. First, a peacekeeping operation by decision of the Organization within the borders of its member states. Its parameters correspond to the traditional (first generation) peacekeeping missions. Secondly, a peacekeeping operation by decision of the UN Security Council. Its deployment requires a mandate of the international community to endow the CSTO, which allows the implementation of multidimensional (second generation) peacekeeping operation by the forces of a regional organization. The third format of the CSTO peacekeeping operations is the participation of the CSTO in UN peacekeeping operations. The necessary legal framework is established by the recent Protocol on Amendments to the Agreement on the Peacekeeping Activities of the CSTO. The Organization is to endow one of the member states with the mandate to apply its multinational (consolidated) peacekeeping forces to the UN Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System. Thus applied CSTO peacekeeping forces can be involved in solving tasks during the UN peacekeeping operations under the CSTO flag. Based on the analysis of the legal framework for interaction between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of peacekeeping, the author concludes that the potential for regional organizations to independently conduct multidimensional peacekeeping missions without direct violating state sovereignty or the UN Security Council mandate is significantly limited. The main opportunity for the collective use of the CSTO peacekeeping potential lies in its involvement in UN peacekeeping operations based on the approaches applied within the UN system to the organization of international peacekeeping activities.

Pelaksanaan Prinsip Responsibility To Protect PBB Dalam Penanganan Krisis Kemanusiaan Di Afrika (Republik Afrika Tengah, Sudan & Nigeria)

The changing nature of conflict post World War II from inter-state conflict to intra-state conflit resulted in insistent humanitarian crises. Based on UNOCHA Report 2010, in 2009, Africa had the biggest number of humanitarian crises. This article aiming at explaining the humanitarian crises in Africa, the effort to deal with the crises from humanitarian intervention and the rise of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Principles, and implementation of principles in Central African Republic, Sudan and Nigeria. In general, UN Security Council is a central institution which the highest authority in world security issue to implement the R2P Principles. However, the principles enforcement in these three cases interposed African Union as a main actor to implement UN Security Council mandate as well as the International Criminal Court as a prosecutor and adjudicator crimes against humanity .

The Russian Stand on the Responsibility to Protect: Does Strategic Culture Matter?

Though Russia has approved the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) in the UN platforms it has often been placed rightly in the ‘sceptics group’ of states that are not at ease with the premises and practices of R2P. What is the basis of the Russian discontent? This article suggests the relevance of strategic culture in explaining the Russian position on R2P. It is based on the assertion that, in addition to humanitarian and moral aspects, responding to mass atrocities within the doctrine of R2P takes place in a context of security considerations since, in severe cases, it involves, among others, a military component under a UN Security Council mandate. As such the use of force, approving or disapproving, it is all related to the realm of security even if the motive and objective may be humanitarian. In the security domain, this article argues that Russian strategic culture, in interaction with its national identity, historical experiences and prevailing narratives, forms a loose code of conduct and a context within which strategic decisions concerning the use of force in responding to a humanitarian crisis are made. It is, thus, concluded that Russian strategic culture by constraining decision-makers, defining appropriate behaviour and reflecting insecurities and aspirations explains Russia’s approach to R2P’s normative propositions, legal standing and implementation in practice.

Humanitarian Intervention (Encyclopedia Entry)

This short entry — written for an encyclopedia on human rights issues — offers a succinct overview of the debate about humanitarian intervention under international law. It outlines the applicable rules of the UN Charter and customary international law and summarises State practice in the field. Its argues that international law as it stands does not recognise a right of humanitarian intervention outside the UN; however, in individual instances, uses of force that ostensibly averted humanitarian catastrophes have been tolerated. Collective humanitarian interventions, undertaken with Security Council mandate, are no doubt permissible; but in times of strategic confrontation between the Council's permanent members, the prospect for them is slim. Looking ahead, one might envisage an increased role for the General Assembly: an intervention recommended by the General Assembly might stand a strong chance of being tolerated; and the same could be true for humanitarian interventions with a robust regional mandate. Yet so far, during decades of debate, concerns about abuse have proved to be the most powerful consideration.

Odpowiedzialność za naruszenie międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego przez siły pokojowe Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations’ missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

Аналіз можливих форм і способів проведення миротворчої операції ООН на Сході України

Formulation of the problem. A number of international legal issues on the deployment of a peacekeeping operation in the east ofUkraine remain unresolved: who and on what line the peacekeeping contingent should share, the legitimization of the peacekeeping operation, the manning of the peacekeeping contingent.Presenting main material. It is acceptable for the United Nations to deploy peacekeeping forces on the internationally recognized border ofUkraine and theRussian Federation. This will stop the support of the separatists from the Russian territory. The position of the RF consists in the division of the conflicting sides according to the actual line of contact. This means that potential peacekeepers, if sent to the conflict zone, will appear in the depth of Ukrainian territory. Their presence will have a "freezing" function and will not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to carry out measures to ensure national security and defense, the return of control over temporarily occupied territories in theDonetsk and Lugansk regions.There are two main types of UN operations:- peacekeeping - requires the documented consent of the parties to the conflict, can be carried out by regional organizations, in cooperation with the UN or independently; the UN mandate is desirable, but it may not be;- peace enforcement - requires the existence of a UN Security Council mandate, but does not require the consent of the parties to the conflict.Another group of problems relates to the allocation of peacekeeping contingents. The region, which came under the control of the occupation administration, was declared "the area of implementation of measures to ensure national security and defense, repelling and deterring the armed aggression of theRussian FederationinDonetskand Lugansk regions." This excludes the UN from among the potential regulators, or requires the use of regional organizations instead of UN contingents, in fact, there are only three combat-capable contingents in this region: the NATO Response Force, the European Union Operational and Tactical Union (CJTF), the CSTO Collective Peacekeeping Forces.Conclusions. Thus, for the solution of specific tasks in the context of the conflict in the East of Ukraine, the usual peacekeeping operation or UN political mission is not suitable, but it is precisely the creation of an individual partnership of the forces of various organizations and, possibly, individual states. Such a partnership can include a political and diplomatic mission of the UN and the OSCE, and will rely on the components of the NATO, EU and CSTO crisis response forces to establish the guaranteed separation and violent development of the heavy weapons of the parties. Such a combination of power components makes sense only in the case of full implementation of Minsk agreements.

The Problem of the Authority of the International Criminal Court

This research examines the problem of the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC), focusing on its claim to jurisdiction as its primary exercise of authority. The research questions the basis of the Court’s authority, beginning with an analysis of current theories of authority and exploring their relevance to the Court. It then explores the ‘permission’ that it has to act, based on the consent of States and the UN Security Council mandate, and questions whether the Court has the authority to act, based on current legal theories. The problems associated with using current theory and methods of thinking about authority to explain the authority that the ICC are then explored.

The African Union’s Mediation Mandate and the Libyan Conflict (2011)

ABSTRACTThe African Union’s mediation mandate for the Libya crisis of 2011 derived from the organization’s Constitutive Act and the United Nations Charter. The African Union activated this constitutional mandate by designing a roadmap to end the crisis peacefully. However, the roadmap’s incompatibility with the UN Security Council mandate on the use of force and its lack of clarity on the future of Muamar Gaddafi discredited it in the eyes of the rebels and the United Nations. The African Union obtained a mandate to mediate from Gaddafi but not from the rebels, and its mediation proved ill-designed to deal with the crisis. These factors contributed to the failure of the mediation effort.

Particularized protection: UNSC mandates and the protection of civilians in armed conflict

ABSTRACTThe protection of civilians at risk in armed conflict has, since the late 1990s, become institutionalized at the United Nations (UN), gaining acceptance as a normative rationale for UN peacekeeping. However, the bulk of civilians in need of protection in armed conflict are unlikely to attain it. The article develops an argument on ‘particularized protection' – particularized in that UN Security Council (SC) mandates are formulated and adjusted over time to direct mission protection to specific subsets of civilian populations, that is, those relevant to the UN itself, the host state, other states, NGOs and the media, leaving most local civilians receiving little effective protection. Particularized protection, we argue, is a result of the institutional dynamics involving actors producing mandates – the UNSC – and those providing protection – peacekeeping missions – whereby mandates are specified to direct mission protection to selected, particularized groups. We demonstrate these dynamics in two cases, Côte d'Ivoire and Somalia.

Separating Protection from Politics: The UN Security Council, the 2011 Ivorian Political Crisis and the Legality of Regime Change

The relationship between the United Nations (UN) and its Member States is under constant evolution, in particular with regards to the demarcation of the state’s sovereignty. The global movement towards action against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing has encroached substantially upon what would traditionally have been considered ‘matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction’ of a state; the parameters of the Security Council’s power to ‘maintain or restore international peace and security’ is consequently of much contestation and negotiation. This article discusses the involvement of the Security Council through its peacekeeping force, the UN Operation in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI), in the Ivorian political crisis of 2011, and its impact upon the line dividing ‘domestic jurisdiction’ and ‘international peace and security’. Specifically, the article discusses the actions of UNOCI and its alleged participation in the removal of the government of Laurent Gbgabo from power, with reference to its Security Council mandate and the practical realities concerned with realising the civilian protection portion of its mandate. The article argues that regime change may be a necessary strategy in tackling government-committed atrocities. Moreover, with reference to the principle of self-determination, the article argues that Security Council-initiated regime change is within the boundaries of the Council’s legal power. Finally, the article discusses its practical ramifications, with reference to the conflict over sovereignty arising between ‘Western’ states and the so-called ‘BRICS’ (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries.

Postoj Ruské federace k vojenským intervencím Západu v letech 1999-2011

On the one hand, Russia is among the countries which often criticize the Western-led military intervention. On the other hand, in the last twenty years, Russia has repeatedly approved using military force by the West against an individual state, endorsed by the United National Security Council. The main purpose of this article is therefore to describe and analyse Russian position towards four Western military interventions 1999-2011. Specifically, the article is focused on two military interventions without UN Security Council mandates (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003), the intervention with the expanded UN Security Council resolution (Afghanistan 2001) and the military intervention that was partially approved by the UN Security Council resolutions (Libya 2011).

‘Humanitarian Rights’: Bridging the Doctrinal Gap between the Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect

The right to intervene under Article 4(h) of the African Union (AU) Constitutive Act and the third pillar of responsibility to protect (R2P) provides for the possibility of using military force to protect civilians from mass atrocities. However, both Article 4(h) and R2P do not specify how the military can or should use force to protect civilians. The omission to define how the military should use force to protect populations at risk was brought to the fore by the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, through which NATO has been criticized to have overstepped the Security Council mandate. The doctrinal deficit on protecting civilians is worsened by legalistic thinking on the normative separation of human rights and humanitarian law, a division driven by their historical roots. Nonetheless, human rights violations occur during warfare and humanitarian law violations may also be human rights violations. Both spheres of law are complimentary and mutually reinforcing and victims do not distinguish whether they have suffered human rights or humanitarian law violations. What they need is protection. This paper presents a ‘humanitarian rights’ approach as the symbiotic methodology for civilian protection that recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human being.

Cooperation between the UN Peacekeeping Operation and the ICC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Arguing that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks sufficient resources to conduct investigation activities, the author suggests that cooperation between United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations and the Court is paramount not only in relation to the arrest of indicted individuals — the enforcement pillar of the ICC — but also with respect to the judicial pillar. This pattern of cooperation has been implemented in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and is analysed in this article. The author first discusses the legal framework applicable to cooperation between the ICC and the UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC, renamed MONUSCO), pointing out some contradictions in the Security Council mandate, due to divergent opinions among its members. The author then focuses on the memorandum of understanding signed by the two organizations and analyses its implementation, describing some activities undertaken in this context, although underlining the lack of transparency and the unavailability of precise official information. While reporting positively on some aspects, the author expresses concern on some unresolved outcomes of the first two judgments rendered by the ICC in the Ngudjolo Chui and Lubanga cases. Finally, the author addresses the recent Resolution 2098 of 2013, in which the Security Council finally agreed to explicitly authorize full cooperation between MONUSCO and the ICC. By doing so, it implicitly recognized the success of past activities and paved the way for possible future similar partnerships.

Operationalizing Civilian Protection in Mali: The Case for a Civilian Casualty Tracking, Analysis, and Response Cell

This practice note details an emerging best practice of civilian harm mitigation in armed conflict: the creation of civilian casualty tracking, analysis, and response processes by a warring party or peacekeeping force. It asserts that in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon Somalia, processes aimed at better understanding civilian harm and addressing its consequences have positively shaped mission tactics, training, and overall operations. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, tracking and analysis has led to a marked decrease in civilian casualties and facilitated the making of amends for any civilian losses. The paper argues that for warring parties to achieve their mission—particularly one with a protection of civilians mandate, such as the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)—they must fully understand the impact of their actions on the civilian population, positive or negative. For this reason, a Civilian Casualty Tracking, Analysis, and Response Cell should be created for MINUSMA to improve its ability mitigate risk to civilians as required by its UN Security Council mandate.

Can there be a human rights approach to international intervention?

International law concerning military intervention is traditionally based on the legal principle of non-intervention, but has changed due to UN Security Council practice and enhanced protection of human rights. This article discusses the current international practice and the relationship between international interventions and the application of the rights approach. Looking at the UN Security Council mandate, the article questions whether there is a consideration or integration of the rights approach to international intervention. Unless the rights approaches are fully integrated into international intervention, there will be little achievement in fully resolving conflicts and implementing long-term, effective, post-conflict recovery programmes.

The Importance of Frames: The Diverging Conflict Analyses of the United Nations and the African Union

The management of the conflicts in Libya and Mali has shown the contrast that exists between the African security organizations’ will to bring ‘‘African solutions to African problems’’ and the reality. In the case of Libya, an alliance of 17 non-African states undertook a major military intervention under a Security Council mandate against the will of the AU. In the case of Mali, the SC gave regional actors the authorization to use force, but the African states were unable to act. It would certainly be unfair to pronounce a very harsh judgment here concerning the incapacity of African organizations to impose peace and security. These organizations are faced with a ‘‘mission impossible’’ as the continent has been rattled by major conflicts in so many different places. African states, often facing important internal problems, are called to contribute to external security operations, stretching their resources to a breaking point. Against this difficult background, actions by regional organizations have sometimes proved useful, for example, the African mission in Burundi in 2003 or the ongoing AU Somalia mission. At the same time it is probably necessary to rethink the role and the ambitions of African organizations in the field of peace and security. Instead of spending energy on drafting ambiguous texts that proclaim a right to military intervention outside the legality of the UN Charter, it might be better to consider avenues for increasing cooperation with the UN and obtaining crucial international assistance in order to be able to undertake crisis intervention and/or complex peacekeeping operations. African organizations should also boost their conflict prevention, resolution, and mediation capacities while finally putting in place the African Standby Force which was supposed to be the centerpiece of the AU’s peace and security architecture. Last but not least, the United Nations and the international community should be more respectful of the political will of major African organizations such as the AU, and should not ignore them, as happened in the Libya conflict.

K některým aspektům aplikace mandátu RB OSN během operace NATO Unified Protector

The question of the compliance of the NATO operation Unified Protector with the international law has not become a key topic of scholarly debate yet. The prevailing attitude is such that NATO intervention was in accordance with the international law. Nevertheless, the article argues that NATO in Libya exceeded the UN Security Council mandate. Unified Protector was an operation conducted in the favour of one side, in this case, the rebels. NATO military engagement in Libya very much approached providing air support to Libyan rebelling groups in order to topple the regime. Furthermore, this conclusion is also confirmed by the fact that Western countries had provided military advisors and arms as well.