Unilateral Use of Force

Did America's Coalition of the Willing meet the UN's requirements for collective action?

Is the UN "law" on the unilateral use of force, articulated in Article 2(4), irrelevant? Does it serve any purpose(s)?

The UN banned the unilateral use of force in order to defer all war to the decision of a consensus of nations, as presently embodied in the United Nations.

As far back as the Hague Conferences of 1899, groups of nations have tried "to limit the national use of armaments" (Slomanson 485). Instead of banning war (which was politically impossible), they settled for a group of treaties and conventions in order to regulate the conduct of war.

"Members [of the UN] are expected to avoid the use of force because it threatens peace" (493). Rather than condoning the unilateral use of force, the UN would prefer a collective response to threats to the international system. "The UN further authorizes regional arrangements" (Ibid.), such as NATO.

Collective rather than unilateral response has not been made irrelevant by the invasion of Iraq. First of all, the invasion of Iraq was not a unilateral invasion by the United States: that coalition comprised 30 nations, including Spain, Italy, Japan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Philippines. (Schifferes) It was only unilateral in that the "Coalition of the Willing" was assembled by the US rather than by a UN body, such as the Security Council.

The UN "law" precluding unilateral action is still valid because the UN authorizes regional arrangements or arrangements through mutual protection. The invasion of Iraq may have undermined UN authority through the US's end-run, but it did not obviate the goal of collective response to international threats.

Sources:

Schifferes, Steve. "US names 'coalition of the willing'." BBC News, 18 March 2003. Internet: Link, accessed 18 Jul 2006.
Slomanson, William R. Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 4th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 2003.

international

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

So what I am trying to say is that though America acted without UN mandate in assembling the "Coalition of the Willing", it doesn't mean that the UN is dead. It just means there are other solutions outside the cacophonous world body. There are always regional solutions (NATO, EuroArmy) as well as the cobbled-together "Multi-National Forces -- Iraq".

Successfully updated karma reason!

How can we reconcile Article 2(4)'s prohibition on the threat or use of force to attack or interfere with the political independence of another state with Article 51's guarantee to use self-defense if attacked? Does Article 51 take the teeth out of Article 2(4)?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter says that member States must "refrain...
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state." But what if that state infringes
on Nation X's ability to self-determine? What if Nation X is
antagonized by the saber-rattling and military exercises of another
country? Can that nation, in the eyes of Article 51, infringe on Nation
X's "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed
attack occurs against" X's forces? Is there a middle ground where both
articles may be satisfied without contradiction? Can Nation X invoke
one without the other?

In this scenario, China is our Nation X. It owns Taiwan, yet America
has historically sworn to defend Taiwan's independence. Despite the
waning rhetoric, now to the point that President Bush no longer supports
Taiwanese independence ("Bush Opposes"), in the past we have been quite
provocative with China. Holding naval exercises in the Taiwan Straits,
between the shores of China and Taiwan, does much to stoke the fire.
Would China have seen US actions as a threat to their ownership of
Taiwan? We still regularly fly reconnaisance missions in the South
China Sea, specifically conducting "electronic countermeasures" against
China (Felstead). Are these activities provocative enough to justify a
threat to the Chinese homeland?

Thankfully, no. Though inflamed and irritated by American posturing in
the Taiwanese Straits, China never felt threatened enough to go to war.
The Americans never fired a shot, though the EP-3 did cause a Chinese
fighter jet to crash (Ibid.), thus failing to fulfill the "armed attack"
clause in Article 51.

Sources:
"Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence." FOX News, 9 Dec 2003. Internet: Link, accessed 20 Jul 2006.

Felstead, Peter. "'Inside' account further exonerates EP-3 pilot." Jane's Defence Weekly, 18 May 2001. Internet: Link, accessed 20 Jul 2001.

Successfully updated karma reason!

it doesn't mean that the UN is dead.

Nope. But a man can dream, damn it.........

Successfully updated karma reason!