Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> UN Security Council
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
Jacen
post Jun 24 2004, 01:00 PM
Post #1


George W Bush
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 966
Joined: 8-August 02
From: Perth
Member No.: 89



Does the UNSC have any authority to authorise the use of military force against a member state of the UN? ie. without the consent of the member's government.

I would think the 3rd paragraph of Article 2 of the UN Charter would disallow it:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

It would explain the inability of the UNSC to use military force to end the genocide in Sudan (although not the UN's failure to condemn the Sudanes government for tacit support of this), but then why would the US seek UN blessings for the war on Iraq?

I'm a little confused here.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jun 24 2004, 01:11 PM
Post #2


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 7,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



Yes they have, I refer you to chapter 7, article 42:

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [measures not involving the use of armed force] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jun 24 2004, 06:33 PM
Post #3


Nenemo Ari
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,726
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



however such measures have to be approved by the UNSC right? - NOT unilateral measures by rogue nations.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jun 25 2004, 11:31 AM
Post #4


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 7,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



Yes, "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate,"
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Bar-Aram
post Jun 25 2004, 12:08 PM
Post #5


I agree with Dragonspirit
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,778
Joined: 12-June 03
From: Jönköpings kommun/Sverige
Member No.: 382



Well, so far the UNSC's reaction towards the nations involved in Iraq has been about the same as their reaction towards most other nations who have gone to war without permission from the UNSC in the last 50 years. So what's the problem? :rolleyes:
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jun 25 2004, 12:17 PM
Post #6


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 7,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



Some people insist on arguing that the Iraqi war was legal. My analysis of that is that most people either confuse legitimacy with legality and/or see legality as strongly connecting to legitimacy (thereby needing to rationalise their belief that the war is legitimate by arguing that it's legal).

And that people don't dare to be anarachists :color:
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jun 25 2004, 12:23 PM
Post #7


Nenemo Ari
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,726
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



bar aram: and of course the main agressor nation having a veto pewer over any possible actions wnt have affected that lack of response in the slightest.


its time to end the veto.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jun 25 2004, 12:27 PM
Post #8


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 7,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



Getting back to Sudan, I wouldn't be very surprised if the UN did nothingh, unfortunately. It seems that no major state (e.g. the US, UK, France) is really interested in doing something about the situation, and Sudan has little strategic value except as an Arab state.

The fact that it's an Arab state mostly only means something to the Arab league and similar, who in turn probably supports the government (and thereby indirectly the government sponsored militias), which in turn means that taking on some level hostile, or even armed, action against Sudan wouldn't be welcomed by the states of the Arab league. The things in this paragraph is mostly educated guesses, and may or may not correspond with "reality".


By the way, does anyone know who were Sudan's colonial masters, i.e. who owned the colony?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Wolfenstein
post Jun 25 2004, 04:58 PM
Post #9


Ask not what JFTD can do for you, Ask what you can do fo JFTD
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,319
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Soviet Canuckistan/Pigdogia Land
Member No.: 2



There was a very long thread about this...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jun 25 2004, 05:02 PM
Post #10


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 7,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



If you're talking about the legality of Iraq, then yes, several long threads. Not about Sudan though, but then again the US isn't involved in that (they'll get blamed for that afterwards).
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Telum
post Jun 25 2004, 07:18 PM
Post #11


Make Believe
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 6,543
Joined: 20-December 02
Member No.: 224



QUOTE (MindsWideOpen @ Jun 25 2004, 08:27 AM)
By the way, does anyone know who were Sudan's colonial masters, i.e. who owned the colony?

I believe it was Britian, but am not sure.
Top
User is online!PM
Quote Post
Bar-Aram
post Jun 25 2004, 08:36 PM
Post #12


I agree with Dragonspirit
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,778
Joined: 12-June 03
From: Jönköpings kommun/Sverige
Member No.: 382



I believe Ottomans and then Brittain.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Wolfenstein
post Jun 25 2004, 08:53 PM
Post #13


Ask not what JFTD can do for you, Ask what you can do fo JFTD
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,319
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Soviet Canuckistan/Pigdogia Land
Member No.: 2



Actually, IIRC Sudan was considered a vesal state of Egypt (under every colonial rule of Egypt until the 20th century)...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Wolfenstein
post Jun 25 2004, 09:08 PM
Post #14


Ask not what JFTD can do for you, Ask what you can do fo JFTD
********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 5,319
Joined: 16-June 02
From: Soviet Canuckistan/Pigdogia Land
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (MindsWideOpen @ Jun 25 2004, 01:02 PM)
If you're talking about the legality of Iraq, then yes, several long threads. Not about Sudan though, but then again the US isn't involved in that (they'll get blamed for that afterwards).

Yap, this thread: http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=9617

If you take out KreeL's posts, it was one of the best discussions on U-P I've had...

This post has been edited by Wolfy: Jun 25 2004, 09:08 PM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 28th May 2005 - 02:07 PM