On 26 March, the South Korean frigate "Chenoan" was torpedoed in the Yellow Sea, causing the deaths of 46 sailors. Although North Korea has denied he seems a striking convergence of evidence calls into question his responsibility. On 23 November, the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong who was hit by gunfire also came from the North. Since then, there is a war of words between the two Koreas and a growing tension since the announcement of holding joint maneuvers U.S. Marines and South Korea in the region.
This concern led to remember - so certainly too brief - a few basic legal principles in managing international crises.
The UN Charter calls on states to settle their disputes peacefully and to "refrain in their international relations from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations "( UN Charter, Art 2.4 ). It is therefore all forms of aggressive use of "force" that is so off-the-law internationally.
The general rule established in 1945 was completed December 14, 1974 by Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the Security Council, under which aggression may lie among others in "the bombardment by the armed forces a State, territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State "(Article 3 c]). This approach has to be incorporated on June 8 in the definition of aggression adopted by Article 8 bis of the Statute of the International Criminal Court at the end of the session in Kampala.
If the use of force is prohibited for aggression, it remains authorized by Article 51 of the Charter under self-defense, at least until the UN had able to adopt "necessary measures" to maintain peace and security.
Interpretation This latter provision has led to innumerable debates in which he can not enter here into a few lines.
It seems possible to conclude that the use of self-defense is acceptable to postpone by proportionate means an actual or imminent attack. On the other hand, is more difficult to accept the continuation in time and / or space in a defensive action that would amount to a new aggression. It would also be true of a delayed action in time that is closer to armed reprisals for punishing aggression. In a word, whether self-defense can protect themselves in emergencies, it does not give a "good for" the ultimate revenge or future.
Once the danger had passed, the process of non-violent resolution of conflict must regain citizenship. Methods political, diplomatic and judicial found is their normal space of expression.
If these methods prove ineffective, remains the basic rule that the UN has a monopoly of coercion as part of a collective security system. This stress can take different forms ranging from political, technical or economic use extreme force in a multilateral and coordinated.
We do know that these decisions should normally be taken by the Security Council in which the prevailing rule of the veto of the "Big Five" (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States). However, in situations of sensitivity to what we know today in the Far East, one might worry - if it was referring to the traditional diplomatic patterns - that one of the holders of the veto would be tempted to use it, blocking obtaining a decision. The greatest chance of success in maintaining peace and security then reside upstream of the ultimate solutions. Among these are, in addition to any bilateral talks (known in this case they are unlikely), initiatives of the General Assembly, the influence of regional organizations (unrealistic in this case) or proactive diplomacy that can develop the Secretary General of the UN. From this point of view, the situation is delicate because the current Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea. Certainly, its function emerges from the contingencies of his nationality, the fact remains that his situation is uncomfortable.
For these reasons, it is hoped that a situation could lead to destabilization of a vast region in which at least three of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a very direct interest, the Korean crisis of 2010 provides an opportunity for multilateral cooperation found. It would certainly have a positive influence on the solution to achieve, but it could also contribute to deviate from an institutional form of multilateralism - Common during the cold war and prevail again since the mid-1990s - and to report to the Security Council's vocation coterie peacemaker.
As the UN seeks to redefine the heart of its mission, this is a major opportunity for tomorrow as much as a current need for peace. The challenge is therefore to measure hope.
0 comments:
Post a Comment