Collective Measures not Involving the Use of Force

Chapter VII, Art. 41 – Sanctions not involving use of force, not necessarily as a substitute for military action.

Sanctions mechanism has proved hugely important for UN system – both to respond to serious violations of int’l law that amount to threat or breach of peace AND to react to situations which imperil peace and security (although aren’t quite breaches of int’l law).

Often, the less coercive the sanctions are, the more frequently and effectively they are used. Sanctions help to express collective condemnation of State mis-behaviour.

Their effectiveness depends on:

· level of support they actually enjoy (if member states don’t comply, they don’t work)

· quality of targeting

14.3.1 Economic and Other ‘Sanctions’’

Sometimes SC has decided that member States should take certain economic or commercial measures against a delinquent state.

Southern Rhodesia (1966-1979) and South Africa (1977-1994) – under Art. 41 of Charter, SC imposed an embargo on import and export of certain goods, specifically military in South Africa

SC imposed Economic sanctions and military embargoes:

· Iraq (661/1990), Somalia (733/1992), Libya (748/1992), Yugoslavia (757/1992), Liberia (788/1992), Haiti (841/1993), Angola’s UNITA group (864/1993), Sierra Leone (1132/1997), Taleban in Afghanistan (1267/1999).

SC recommended the adoption of measures, like breaking off diplomatic relations:

South Africa (from 1962), Portugal (1963-1975, due to its colonial policy).

Due to lack of substantial and unanimous support by international community, many of these resolutions have not been heeded.

14.3.2 Non-Recognition of Illegal Situations

UN has sometimes fallen back of non-recognition of situations which it deems illegal.

Israel, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Cyprus, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait

Politically, UN pronouncements of non-recognition aim to isolate delinquent state and compel it to change the situation that has been condemned. They are often used as a last resort when UN can’t find any stronger solution – if you can’t fix it, at least don’t acknowledge it.

Legally, States who support the UN resolution pledge themselves to avoid any international or internal act capable of turning the factual situation into an internationally legal one (like domestic courts treating acts and transactions with the unlawful authority as null and void. BUT states that don’t support the resolution cannot be forced to take the view that the situation is contrary to international law.

14.3.4 Condemnation by the SC

SC also has tool of condemning serious violations of Article 2.4, by defining them as acts of aggression

· condemnation of Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia (573/1985)

Can also condemn use of force without calling it aggression

· War between Ethiopia and Eritrea condemned (1177/1998 and 1227/1990)

14.3.4 Public Exposure, by the GA, of Gross Violations

Another ‘sanction’ the UN uses, for lack of anything better, is public exposure, normally through GA resolutions that condemn unlawful conduct and calling for end to behaviour. Have been used in response to violations of human rights and disregard for basic principles of Organization.

This isn’t a mechanism with lots of teeth, but as states appear to be more and more worried about public opinion and try to avoid moral chastisement.

14.3.5 The Establishment of International Criminal Tribunals

Acting under Chapter VII, Art. 41 (measures not involving use of force, classification confirmed by ICTY in Tadic (Interlocutory Appeal)), the SC has set up international criminal tribunals to prosecute and punish authors of atrocities perpetrated during armed conflict (ICTYugoslavia, 1993 and ICTRwanda, 1994)

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16