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.

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.

however such measures have to be approved by the UNSC right? - NOT unilateral measures by rogue nations.

Yes, "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate,"

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?

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

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.

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?

There was a very long thread about this...

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).

I believe Ottomans and then Brittain.

Actually, IIRC Sudan was considered a vesal state of Egypt (under every colonial rule of Egypt until the 20th century)...