Security Council and Regional Enforcement Actions

Nov 27, 2024

The Security Council's Authorization of Enforcement Action by Regional Organizations

Overview

  • Discusses the Security Council's role in authorizing enforcement action by regional organizations for maintaining international peace.

I. The Relationship between the Security Council and Regional Organizations

  • Article 53 of the UN Charter:
    • Confirms the Security Council's primary responsibility for international peace.
    • Regional organizations can enforce action only under the authority of the Security Council.
    • The Security Council retains powers under Articles 41 and 42, relating to non-armed and armed measures.
    • Regional organizations play a complementary, subordinate role to the Security Council.
    • The General Assembly's 1994 Declaration supports the cooperation between the UN and regional organizations.
    • Former enemy states from WWII no longer classified as such and are now "peace-loving states".

II. Enforcement Measures Requiring the Security Council's Authorization

  • Two Situations Analyzed:
    1. Security Council takes the initiative to utilize regional organizations.
    2. Regional organizations initiate enforcement needing Security Council's authorization.
  • Interpretation Challenges:
    • Clarification needed on the enforcement measures requiring authorization.
    • Authorization considered necessary primarily for armed force actions.
    • Non-military measures (political, commercial, etc.) by regional bodies do not require authorization as they are not prohibited by the UN Charter.

III. Necessity of Security Council's Authorization for Use of Force Recommendations

  • Historical Examples:
    • Cuban Missile Crisis and Grenada Intervention highlighted the need for the Council's authorization even in recommendations.
  • Reasoning:
    • Authorization is required even for recommendations involving the use of force.
    • The Council's condemnation of unilateral actions without its approval underlines this necessity.

IV. Implicit Authorization and the Liberian Crisis

  • Implicit Authorization:
    • Possible when Security Council's intent is clear through its actions or resolutions.
    • Example: ECOWAS's intervention in Liberia.
  • Security Council's Role:
    • Must express clear approval, as seen with ECOWAS in Liberia.

V. The Kosovo Crisis and NATO Intervention

  • NATO's 1999 Intervention:
    • Not expressly authorized by the Security Council.
    • Debate on whether prior resolutions implied an authorization.
  • Key Points:
    • No implicit authorization from Security Council for NATO's actions against Yugoslavia.
    • Resolutions emphasized the Council's intent to maintain oversight and not delegate force use to NATO.

VI. Impossibility of Deducing Authorization from Silence/Inaction

  • Silence is Not Authorization:
    • Security Council’s silence or inaction cannot be interpreted as authorization.
    • Legal and procedural norms require explicit majority consent.

VII. Admissibility of Subsequent Authorization

  • Subsequent Authorization:
    • Theoretically possible but challenges the primary responsibility role of the Security Council.
    • Encourages unauthorized pre-emptive actions, which is against the UN's goal of peace and security.

VIII. Practice of the Security Council

  • Typical Practice:
    • Security Council usually authorizes actions prior to regional enforcement actions (e.g., Yugoslavia).
    • Maintains active control and responsibility through coordination and oversight.

IX. Observations on Authorization Subsequent to Coercive Action

  • Authorizations During Ongoing Actions:
    • Allowed if action is still in progress, allowing the Council to exert control.
    • Different burden of proof for pre-authorized vs. post-initiated actions.
    • Ensures that Security Council's primary role and control are not undermined.