UN – Nu/No/Nein/Niet/Nie

UN – Nu/No/Nein/Niet/Nie
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]„To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” – Art.1 Paragraph 1 CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”237″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]There are many criticisms of the UN Security Council on his actions. In many cases, they are suspected of being motivated by individual interests rather than by a desire to protect world peace or welfare societies.It may be noted enthusiasm intervention to protect human rights when the resource oil-rich Kuwait in the Gulf War, in contrast, to lack the mutual interest to protect the population much poorer in Rwanda.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]Most of the time, situations with a similar degree of distress does not receive the same attention from the Security Council, and a decision is hampered by often even where there are precedents.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]If it adds unrepresentativeness geographic permanent members (Africa, South America, and Australia), creates the unfavorable fair and efficient decision making. In the absence of clear criteria for intervention, United Nations Security Council can easily be suspected of protecting its members’ interests rather than protecting the international peace.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]Veto that it has any of the permanent members would only slow down or even completely block the decision-making process in the UNSC. During the Cold War and the tension between Russia and the US each UN member block access to smaller states which they considered allies of each other Board member. US opposes steady and stable since 1982, any critical resolutions of Israel – traditional ally – issued by the UNSC.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]As shown in the situation of the former Yugoslavia, which triggered massive vetos, this system does nothing to prevent the Council from taking important decisions and often important and threatening not only to the stability of countries in conflict but also to the lives of citizens those countries.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”238″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]UN Charter provides certain principles of international law. I will transfer the discussion about UN Security Council failures to the presentation of these principles. I ask you to weigh whether or not these policies were violated in cases where the UN intervened and whether, given the above, the permanent Member States of UN Security Council act on their interests.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

The principle of sovereign equality

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]Sovereign equality is enshrined as a principle of international law in many documents, primarily the UN Charter. It can be defined as a set of state rights related to the resolution of its internal problems and its external relations, the principles and norms of international law.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]Elements of this policy concern inherent sovereignty or sovereignty over the territory, meaning that the territory of a State, including all its elements we shall be exercised no authority (territorial sovereignty). This includes the exclusive right to adopt laws and regulations within its territory, to ensure the organization of the state in all its aspects, to decide freely on various issues of political, economic, social and cultural rights.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]In the case of abroad citizens, the state has exclusive sovereignty which includes the unique relationship that subsists between a state and its citizens on the territory of other countries, including mutual rights and obligations (personal resolution) and also the right to diplomatic protection. An essential element of the principle of sovereign equality independence refers to the state as a participant in international life, in relations with other countries, which means the right of each state to establish and run freely in its dealings with other nations.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]In the classical international law of foreign, states and governments benefit from immunity from the territorial jurisdiction of other countries. A variety of reasons may lie in this situation.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”239″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

The principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]State sovereignty has the direct consequence the territorial integrity, which involves full power in a particular geographical space. In public international law, the principle of territorial integrity of states means, on the one hand, the state’s right to inviolability of the territory over which it exercises sovereignty, and on the contrary, that the other countries must refrain from any violation of this right.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]The principle of territorial integrity could not be enshrined in international law, as long as the aggression war, conquests and annexations of territory by force any acquisition were deemed lawful and as patrimonial conception prevailed over the land.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

The principle of non-recourse to force and threat of force

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]The situations in which is a legitimate use of force in international relations are established strictly by international law. According to the UN Charter, states have the right to use military force to exercise their right to self-defense, individually or collectively, against an armed attack, recourse to armed force in the exercise of the right to self-defense must be proportionate to the attack and is necessary for rejection aggressor. Appeal to the right to self-defense remains subject to the decision of the Security Council, which have to be made known immediately and can act at any time it deems appropriate to restore or maintain international peace and security.  This calls into question the analysis of the design called „humanitarian intervention,” which consisted of often in the past acts of force against other countries committed acts of powers under the pretext of human rights protection.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]According to this principle, Member States are obliged to refrain from the use of strength, both direct and indirect, being forbidden any military occupation of the territory of a state, as the acquisition of area by force or threat of force. The use of force or threat of force to resolve territorial disputes and border issues, as well as any other international matters, is formally prohibited and states must refrain from reprisals involving the use of force.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

The principle of non-interference in internal affairs of States

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]No State or group of States has the right to interpose, directly or indirectly, for whatever reason, in the internal or external matters of any other State. According to that principle, which stems from the exclusive nature of territorial sovereignty, prohibited direct or indirect threats as various forms against the personality of the State or its political, economic and cultural. Noninterference in domestic affairs is enshrined as a principle of international law through numerous documents, including the UNO Charter Organization that refers to the obligation not to interfere in the internal affairs of Member States, resulting in default and that states have the obligation.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

Principle of respect for the right of people to dispose of themselves

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]The right to self-determination is a permanent and inalienable right, comprising both external aspects, establishing a political status for other peoples and other countries and internal one relating to the development of society in all facets.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]The corollary of the principle of nonuse of force and threat of force is the peaceful settlement of disputes. Renouncing the use of force and threat of force, Member pledged by the UN Charter to settle disputes between them by peaceful means. Both principles constitute a fundamental obligation of all states in the management of their international relations, resulting from the objective to safeguard international peace and security.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]

Conclusion

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text font_size=”20″]I have presented just a few principles. I will ask you whether those laws have been respected by the UN Security Council in cases where it intervened. Can we talk about absolute territorial sovereignty and integrity?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
About the author

    David Alexandru Pădurariu