Jump to content

United Nations Security Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.164.4.102 (talk) at 23:50, 28 July 2009 (→Criticism: Just adding some facts to what a clearly biased editor wrote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Security Council" redirects here. For other uses, see Security Council (disambiguation).
"UNSC" redirects here. For other uses, see UNSC (disambiguation).
United Nations Security Council Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies Template:Fr icon
مجلس أمن الأمم المتحدة Template:Ar icon
联合国安全理事会 Template:Zh icon
Совет Безопасности Организации Объединённых Наций Template:Ru icon
Consejo de Seguridad de
las Naciones Unidas Template:Es icon
Established1946
TypePrincipal Organ
Legal statusActive
Websitewww.un.org/sc

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, London.

Since its first meeting, the Council, which exists in continuous session, has traveled widely, holding meetings in many cities, such as Paris and Addis Ababa, then at its current home in New York City.

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of permanent members and elected members. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter.

Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to a crisis.

Members

Permanent members

See also: China and the United Nations, France and the United Nations, Russia and the United Nations, Soviet Union and the United Nations, United Kingdom and the United Nations, and United States and the United Nations

The Security Council's five permanent members have the power to veto any substantive resolution:

The five permanent members (also known as the P5) were drawn from the victorious powers of World War II, and at the UN's founding in 1946, the Security Council consisted of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States and the USSR. There have been two seat changes since then, although not reflected in Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations as it has not been accordingly amended:

The five permanent members of the Security Council are the only nations recognized as possessing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although some countries with nuclear weapons have not signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body.[citation needed] India,[1] Pakistan[2], Israel[3] and North Korea[4] possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel, however, have actively refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty because it doesn't allow for any new countries to be added to the list of States allowed to possess military nuclear technology.[citation needed]

The Permanent Representatives of the U.N. Security Council permanent members are Zhang Yesui, Jean-Maurice Ripert, Vitaly Churkin, John Sawers, and Susan Rice.[5]

Elected members

See also: List of members of the United Nations Security Council and United Nations Security Council election, 2008

Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms starting on 1 January, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African bloc chooses three members; the Latin America and the Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. Also, one of these members is an Arab country, alternately from the Asian or African bloc.[6]

The current elected members, with the regions they were elected to represent and their Permanent Representatives, are:

President

Main article: President of the United Nations Security Council

The role of president of the Security Council involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings and overseeing any crisis. The President is authorized to issue both presidential statements (subject to consensus among Council members) and notes,[7][8] which are used to make declarations of intent that the full Security Council can then pursue.[8] The Presidency rotates monthly in alphabetical order of the Security Council member nations' names in English and is held by Uganda for the month of July 2009.

Veto power

Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council between 1946 and 2007.[9]
Main article: United Nations Security Council veto power

Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9). Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 82 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China (PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

Procedural matters are not subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid discussion of an issue.

Status of non-members

A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in matters by which the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, allowing many countries to take part in its discussions. Non-members are routinely invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council.

Role

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.

Then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell holds a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003. Foreign ministers and heads of government often appear in the UNSC in person to discuss issues.

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:

  • Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
  • Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
  • Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations;
  • Enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary;
  • Avoid conflict and maintain focus on cooperation.
  • They also recommend the new Secretary-General to the General Assembly[10]

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes that the Security Council has authority to refer cases to the Court, where the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.[11] The Council exercised this power for the first time in March 2005, when it referred to the Court “the situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002”;[12] since Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court could not otherwise have exercised jurisdiction.

Responsibility to protect

Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".[13] The resolution commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

Resolutions

Article 25 of the UN Charter holds that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". This presents ambiguities as to what amounts to a decision as opposed to a recommendation, and also the relevance and interpretation of the phrase "in accordance with the present Charter".[14]

Part of a series on the
UN Security Council
resolutions
Permanent members
Non-permanent members
Lists of resolutions
Resolutions 1 to 1000
          (1946–1995)
Resolutions 1001 to 2000
          (1995–2011)
Resolutions 2001 to 3000
          (2011–present)
Resolutions by topic
Vetoed resolutions

Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), however, have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[15] In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the Namibia advisory opinion that an interpretation of the charter that limits the domain of binding decision only to those taken under Chapter VII would render Article 25 "superfluous, since this [binding] effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter", and that the "language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect".[16] Moreover, in the preliminary rulings of the "Lockerbie" cases[17] the ICJ held that the provisions of the Montreal Convention could be preempted by Security Council resolutions pursuant to Article 25 and Article 103 of the UN Charter. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others.[18] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding. Her reasoning, in part states:

Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression.[19]

Others disagree with this interpretation. Professor Stephen Zunes asserts that "[t]his does not mean that resolutions under Chapter VI are merely advisory, however. These are still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they do not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of military force".[20]. Former President of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins argues that the location of Article 25, outside of Chapter VI and VII and with no reference to either, suggests its application is not limited to Chapter VII decisions.[21] She asserts that the Travaux préparatoires to the UN Charter "provide some evidence that Article 25 was not intended to be limited to Chapter VII, or inapplicable to Chapter VI."[22] She argues that early state practice into what resolutions UN members considered binding has been somewhat ambiguous, but seems to "rely not upon whether they are to be regarded as "Chapter VI or "Chapter VII" resolutions [...] but upon whether the parties intended them to be "decisions" or "recommendations" ... One is left with the view that in certain limited, and perhaps rare, cases a binding decision may be taken under Chapter VI".[23] She supports the view of the ICJ that "clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis ... [and] that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole".[24]

Those resolutions made dealing with the internal governance of the organization (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding presidential statement instead of a Resolution. These are adopted by consensus. They are meant to apply political pressure — a warning that the council is paying attention and further action may follow.

Press statements typically accompany both resolutions and presidential statements, carrying the text of the document adopted by the body and also some explanatory text. They may also be released independently, after a significant meeting.

Criticism

There has been criticism that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked. Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions: for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1994 (though it did protect resource-poor South Korea in 1950).[25] Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization.[26] Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether; under the government of Paul Martin, Canada advocated this approach.[27]

Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[28] Since candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs, the Arab League and its allies are usually included but Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 15 Arab League members have. In fact, Israel used to be the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the Security Council. In addition, the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving," declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.[29]

The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire; according to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members -- North as well as South -- have made very clear...their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."[30]

Other critics and even proponents of the Security Council question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. The most prominent and dramatic example of this is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a UN "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the UN forces did nothing to prevent the massacre.

Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. World federalist Dieter Heinrich points out that the powerful Security Council system does not have distinctions between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches: the UN Charter gives all three powers to the Security Council.[31]

Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world.[32]

Membership reform

Main article: Reform of the United Nations Security Council
The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) support one another’s bids for permanent seats on the Security Council.

There has been discussion of increasing the number of permanent members. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. Indeed, Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders respectively, while Brazil, the largest Latin American nation, and India, the world's largest democracy and second most populous country, are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. This project has found opposition in a group of countries called Uniting for Consensus.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked a team of advisors to come up with recommendations for reforming the United Nations by the end of 2004. One proposed measure is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Brazil, Germany, India, Japan (known as the G4 nations), one seat from Africa (most likely between Egypt, Nigeria or South Africa) and/or one seat from the Arab League.[33] On 21 September 2004, the G4 nations issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with two African countries. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the General Assembly (128 votes).

Chamber

The designated Security Council Chamber in the United Nations Conference Building, designed by the Norwegian architect Arnstein Arneberg, was the specific gift of Norway. The mural painted by the Norwegian artist Per Krogh depicts a phoenix rising from its ashes, symbolic of the world reborn after World War II. In the blue and gold silk tapestry on the walls and in the draperies of the windows overlooking the East River appear the anchor of faith, the wheat stems of hope, and the heart of charity.[34]

See also

References

  1. ^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. "India's nuclear forces, 2005", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61:5 (September/October 2005): 73–75,[1]
  2. ^ Glionna, John M. "Pakistan says its nuclear weapons are secure" "Los Angeles Times" [2] 27 January 2008
  3. ^ Nuclear Weapons [3]
  4. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6032525.stm | BBC News - Retrieved 2009-01-05
  5. ^ Template:PDFlink
  6. ^ "The United Nations Security Council". The Green Papers. Retrieved 2006-05-14.
  7. ^ http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/notes/PresidentialNotesEng.htm
  8. ^ a b http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_pres_statements08.htm
  9. ^ Global Policy Forum (2008): "Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council". Retrieved on 25 August 2008.
  10. ^ http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter5.shtml
  11. ^ Article 13 of the Rome Statute. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
  12. ^ "Security Council Refers Situation in Darfur, Sudan, To Prosecutor of International Criminal Court" (Press release). United Nations Security Council. 31 March 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
  13. ^ Resolution 1674 (2006)
  14. ^ Schweigman, David "The authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter". 2001. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague
  15. ^ Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113.
  16. ^ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter."
  17. ^ Libya v. UK and Libya v. USA
  18. ^ "The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make all decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3-540-23023-8, p. 58.
  19. ^ De Wet, Erika. The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1-84113-422-8, pp. 39-40.
  20. ^ Zunes, Stephen, "International law, the UN and Middle Eastern conflicts". Peace Review, Volume 16, Issue 3 September 2004 , pages 285 - 292:291
  21. ^ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270-286:278
  22. ^ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270-286:279
  23. ^ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270-286:281-2
  24. ^ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270-286:286
  25. ^ Rajan, Chella (2006). "Template:PDFlink". Frontiers of a Great Transition. Vol. 3. Tellus Institute.
  26. ^ "India makes strong case for UNSC expansion". HindustanTimes.com. 13 November 2005. Archived from the original on 2007-09-08. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2006-07-09 suggested (help)
  27. ^ "Statement by Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock on Security Council Reform". Global Policy Forum. 12 July 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  28. ^ John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Harvard University. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  29. ^ The United Nations and Israel by Mitchell Bard
  30. ^ Empowering the Peoples in their United Nations - UN Reform - Global Policy Forum
  31. ^ Creery, Janet (1994). Read the fine print first: Some questions raised at the Science for Peace conference on UN reform. Peace Magazine. Jan-Feb 1994. p. 20. Retrieved on 2007-12-07.
  32. ^ http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business
  33. ^ "UN Security Council Reform May Shadow Annan's Legacy". Voice Of America. 1 November 2006. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  34. ^ UN website.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council&oldid=304776133"