18
The United Nations and the Transformation of the International Society
· The impact of the Westphalian legacy on modern international politics/relations
The UN as globalisation of European norms
· The UN Charter as a pluralist “international constitution” regulating international affairs and the role of:
- Sovereignty/The equality of states
- International law/The laws of “war and peace”
· The solidarist dimension of the UN
· The changing view of intervention and sovereignty
Recall the beliefs of the pluralist tradition…
· States are the primary and constitutive actors of the international system
· Sovereignty grants states equal rights and responsibilities
· Internal sovereignty disqualifies intervention
· There exists a number of norms and institutions that regulate international relations
Sovereignty and non-intervention
· There are no “overarching” universal moral values that unite all states/all peoples
HOW ARE THESE IDEAS EXPRESSED IN THE UN CHARTER?
States are the constitutive actors of the international system
Art. 4:1
“Membership in the United Nations is open to all [other] peace-loving states which accept the obligations in the present Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing to carry out these tasks”
Non-state actors are granted consultative influence in the social and economic field through ECOSOC
Art. 71
“The Economic and Social Council may take suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence”
Sovereignty grants all states equal rights and obligations
Art. 2:1
“The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all states”
Is this really true? Are states both de jure and de facto equal?
Compare the General Assembly with the Security Council
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
- All members are granted a seat in the General Assembly
- Each member has one vote
- Decisions made by a majority (simple or qualified)
THE SECURITY COUNCIL:
Art. 23:1
“The Security Council shall consist of fifteen members of the United Nations”
Contradictory to sovereign equality, some states more equal than others!
- The most powerful organ of the UN, deciding on sanctions, war and intervention
- Five permanent members
- The veto right
- “Great power responsibility” – nothing new!
- Would reform/expansion help?
The principle of sovereignty and non-intervention/ the right to territorial integrity
Art. 2:4
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”
Does this principle apply in all situations?
Art. 2:7
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…
…but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”
· Chapter VII regulates how to act when peace is threatened and under which conditions war is lawful
· Important expression of Jus ad bellum (“just war”)
Art. 39
“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Implies that intervention is ok if authorized by the Security Council, the sanctity of sovereignty disqualified
· Indicative of the existence of an international society – the right to go to war has been institutionalised and legalised
· To what extent does this principle matter? Do states respect the Jus ad bellum?
· Can states resort to war under other circumstances, not authorised by the Security Council?
Art. 51 grants all states the right to self defence
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…”
FROM A PLURALIST ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO A SOLIDARIST
· There are certain interests that are shared by all peoples certain values/principles should be promoted that foster these interests
· Values and interests are not culturally dependent (the pluralist position)
· The security of the individual is most important, not the security of the state
· Secure and affluent peoples (states) need to show solidarity to other peoples (states)
Are these principles evident in the UN Charter?
· States are the only members of the UN
· The purpose of the UN is to achieve peace and international security state security and international order
On the other hand…
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedoms
The importance of individual rights increased after 1990 – why and how?
Why…
· The end of the Cold War and the toleration of certain regimes
· The decolonisation process had been consolidated the right to statehood not as important
· The idea that statehood is conditioned by certain duties as well rights
How…
· Through calling attention to novel threats both to states and to individuals
· Through a more extensive security agenda
An Agenda for Peace (In Larger Freedom)
· An Agenda for Peace
- Preventive Diplomacy: fact finding and peaceful settlements of disputes before they deteriorate
- Peacekeeping: observing and guaranteeing a peace settlement between consenting parties
- Post-conflict peace building: assisting after a conflict in building, economic and political infrastructure
- Peacemaking: the active involvement in order to bring about peace either trough peaceful means or via force a more extensive role for the UN
An Agenda for Peace was an important step towards:
- Justifying humanitarian intervention
- Redefinition of sovereignty
What is an intervention?
According to John Vincent intervention is an:
“Activity undertaken by a state, a group within a state or an international organization which interferes coercively in the domestic affairs of an other state. It is a discrete event having a beginning and an end, and it is aimed at the authority structure of the target state. It is not necessarily lawful or unlawful, but it does break a conventional pattern of international relations.” (Vincent, 1974)
· Intervention is hence neutral in terms of motives Can be guided by both humanitarian and non-humanitarian aims
Humanitarian motives Non-humanitarian motives:
and outcomes humanitarian outcomes
NATO bombing of Kosovo Vietnam intervention
1999 in Cambodia 1978
Humanitarian motives: Non-humanitarian motives:
non-humanitarian outcomes non-humanitarian outcomes
UN intervention in Soviet intervention in
Somalia 1993-1995 Afghanistan 1979
What is the case for and against humanitarian intervention?
For…
· Human rights are recognised in international law:
- Jus Cogens
- The UN Charter
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 etc.
- A growing body of international norms /customary law (Responsibility to Protect)
· Even if contrary to international law humanitarian intervention is morally required
· Globalisation and interdependence disqualifies the practical and moral role of borders
Against…
· States do not intervene for humanitarian reasons state interest decide when to intervene, not moral considerations
· Humanitarian intervention is selective and ruled by strategic interests (why not Turkey, China, Chechnya?)
· States should not risk loss of lives for humanitarian reasons (Somalia)
· There are no universal moral principles to guide when intervention should be used:
- Minimalist rules, purpose of international society is order not justice
- There would be a risk of moral and cultural imperialism
What are the effects on sovereignty if humanitarian intervention is legitimised and legalised?
· Sovereignty will mean the protection of human rights (civic, political, social)
· Sovereignty will imply a Responsibility to Protect (cf. ICISS 2001)
· Sovereignty will conditioned on fulfilling theses duties
· Membership in the UN means accepting this responsibility
· Ipso facto, sovereignty will be exercised collectively
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Is it possible to talk about universal values shared by all peoples or are values culturally determined?
2. Should the future of international society develop in a more solidarist direction or is a pluralist world order better?
3. Is humanitarian intervention a moral act or a sign of moral/cultural imperialism?