当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Legal Studies › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Unilateral Enforcement of Un Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Journal of Legal Studies ( IF 1.577 ) Pub Date : 2018-12-01 , DOI: 10.1515/jles-2018-0013
Alex Ansong 1
Affiliation  

Abstract The prohibition of armed aggression under Article 2(2) of the United Nations Charter is one of the most important developments in international law and international relations in the modern era. The fact that the right to wage war is no longer accepted as falling within the sovereignty of the state has ushered in an appreciably stable international order based on the rule of law and not the rule of might. While states obviously still engage in warfare and numerous wars have been fought by states in the era of the UN, the very fact that the prohibition of armed aggression has assumed universal acceptance as customary international law is a notable achievement. In spite of the prohibition of armed aggression under the UN Charter, self-defence and collective action mandated by the UN Security Council serve as notable exceptions. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom) was peculiar because, the justification for the invasion hinged on the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions. This justification thus brought to the fore whether, under international law, there was the right to unilaterally enforce Security Council Resolutions. In the current resurgence of unilateralism typified by the US Trumpled withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from multilateral systems of international governance and cooperation, it is important to reiterate the lessons of unilateralism epitomized by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the instabilities that have become offshoots of this invasion – e.g. the creation of monsters like the so-called Islamic State. This article discusses the resort to unilateralism under the guise of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. It also engages in a brief discussion on the justifications for war prior to the UN Charter and the provisions on the use of force prescribed in the Charter. It uses the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a case study to shed light on legality of unilateral enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions.

中文翻译:

联合国安理会决议的单方面执行:伊拉克自由行动案

摘要《联合国宪章》第二条第二款禁止武装侵略是近代国际法和国际关系中最重要的发展之一。发动战争的权利不再被接受为属于国家主权这一事实,已经建立了一种以法治而不是力量规则为基础的稳定的国际秩序。虽然各国显然仍在进行战争,并且在联合国时代各国曾进行过多次战争,但禁止武装侵略已被普遍接受为习惯国际法这一事实是一项显着成就。尽管《联合国宪章》禁止武装侵略,但联合国安理会授权的自卫和集体行动是明显的例外。2003年以美国为首的对伊拉克的入侵(即“伊拉克自由行动”)是特殊的,因为入侵的理由取决于执行联合国安理会决议。因此,这一理由变得很重要,根据国际法,是否有权单方面执行安全理事会的决议。当前,以美国为代表的单边主义风潮复燃,美国大肆宣布退出或威胁要退出多边国际治理与合作体系,因此必须重申以2003年入侵伊拉克为代表的单边主义的教训,以及由此而产生的不稳定因素。入侵-例如,制造所谓的伊斯兰国之类的怪物。本文讨论了在执行联合国安理会决议的幌子下诉诸单边主义。它还简短讨论了《联合国宪章》之前战争的理由以及《宪章》中规定的使用武力的规定。它以美国为首的2003年入侵伊拉克的案例研究为例,阐明了单方面执行联合国安理会决议的合法性。
更新日期:2018-12-01
down
wechat
bug