The use of force: legal aspects

In: International affairs: a Russian journal of world politics, diplomacy and international relations, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 38-49

Abstract

It is contended that certain nations' and international organizations' inconsistent adherence to United Nations Security Council resolutions possesses deleterious consequences for existing international law and order. The US is strongly critiqued for invoking various Security Council resolutions to defend the US-led attacks against Iraq; indeed, several difficulties with the US's interpretation of Security Council resolutions and the United Nations Charter are highlighted. The question of whether the absence of Security Council support for the US-led attacks against Iraq illuminates the body's incapacity to promote security or exemplifies its position on the attacks is then considered. Attention is subsequently directed toward exploring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's and the US-led coalition's contention that developments that require humanitarian intervention or pre-emptive self-defense should override Security Council resolutions and United Nations Charter; it is asserted that such situations require international attention but that international law should not be abandoned in addressing humanitarian crises or justifying self-defense. Consequently, the formation and observance of universally accepted international law are stressed.