Search icone
Search and publish your papers

Does the agreement of the Security Council of the UN legitimize the use of force in international relations? Does the absence of such agreement delegitimize the use of force? Two recent cases will be taken in order to analyze the paper.

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

General public

About the document

Published date
documents in English
case study
5 pages
General public
0 times
Validated by
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction
  2. A potential economic and ecological importance
    1. A possible flexibility of the treaty for a future operation?
    2. Climatic upheaval with multiple outcomes
  3. Towards recognition of indigenous peoples
  4. The Arctic: a military zone that is highly strategic
  5. Conclusion

Since its foundation in 1945, the United Nations has been responsible for the collective security. Ever since Operation Desert Storm in 1991, The UN has actively debated on the problem regarding of the use of force and whether it might ever be justified - and if so under what circumstances.

This issue has remained at the heart of all International debates. The Security Council of the UN is responsible for the defense of its member states. The scale of a "new interventionism" in fact pinpoints the evolution in international relations and the need to follow the common security policy where international obligations should rank alongside the defense of national interest. It is therefore obvious that the authority and the power of the Security Council follow this development. It has to be said that the Security Council's power rests upon the Human Rights Charter, which was signed by all the members of the council; few chapters of this Charter enables the Security council to use the force under special conditions. In that box, it sounds obvious that the use of force is legitimized by the approval of the Security Council. However, one should wonder whether the Security Council approval is not to have meant for the member states, like custom and the U.K. to further their own personal aims by using "legal forces" and justifying it as "humanitarian intervention"? Is there any need to limit the discretion of member states authorized to use force? How far does the Security Council resolution allow the use of force by members of the coalition?

Tags: United Nations; Security Council; Human Rights Charter; humanitarian intervention; Security Council resolution

Top sold for international relations

Constructivism and intervention: The case of Kosovo

 Politics & international   |  International affairs   |  Term papers   |  11/29/2009   |   .doc   |   5 pages

How useful is the term "New terrorism" in distinguishing -9/11 post terrorism from the form that...

 Politics & international   |  International affairs   |  Presentation   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   7 pages

Recent documents in international relations category

Places and forms of power - How did Africa go from an oppressive regime to a real democracy?

 Politics & international   |  International affairs   |  Presentation   |  09/23/2019   |   .doc   |   3 pages

Biography of Kwame Nkrumah

 Politics & international   |  International affairs   |  Summaries   |  11/21/2018   |   .doc   |   2 pages