INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD POLITICS
In order to fully understand the outcome of these three scenarios inrelation to the international law and the use of force, we must firstdiscuss the law as defined by the UN Charter. The UN Charter governs theinternational law and the use of force and has outlined very clear criteriafor "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity orpolitical independence of any state" (article 2 S4). The Charter strivesto provide a state the ability to maintain its sovereignty and individualstate integrity while outlining two instances that the use of force may beused. The first is 'individual or self defense' (art. 51), when a memberstate is the victim of aggression. As Guicherd points out, there arelimitations to this justification. For example, Resolution 2625 states thatassistance to either party engaged in a civil war is prohibited (20). The second justification for use of force is when the SecurityCouncil recognizes the "existence of any threat to the peace, breach of thepeace, or act of aggression" (art. 39) and determines the use of coerciveaction is appropriate. It is important to note that there are coercivemeasures that can be taken that do not include the use of force,
The second opinion is that the use of force, although alwaysconsidered the last resort, is sometimes the best course of action inrelation to the welfare of the people. This is true onboth an international and domestic front. Meilinger raises an interesting point of view and offers some evidencetoward the support for this argument stating. The United States further strengthened its casewith Resolution 1373 in which the decision was outlined that "all Statesshall take all necessary steps to prevent the commission of terroristacts. Then UnitedStates Secretary of State Madeline Albright made a statement reiteratingthat Kosovo was a "'unique situation sui generis in the region of theBalkans'" and that it is important 'not to overdraw the lessons that comefrom it'" (Byers, 405). The action in Iraq isparticularly interesting because the action is currently taking place andthus the outcome on international law has yet to be seen or fullyunderstood, although there is much speculation on the impact it will havein setting international legal precedent. Since a nuclear strike had not occurred,the States rejected Israel's claim and ruled that the necessaryrequirements were not fulfilled. Milosevic continued to deny the growingtensions in Kosovo as an international issue and one that he contendedshould be handled internally. such asimposing sanction on a state found in violation. Meilinger raises an interesting point of view. Caplan presents the argument that "by usingthe term 'terrorist' to describe the UCK, it provided the Serbianauthorities with a legitimate pretext for brutally unlawfully measures"(754). Regardless of whetherthe legality of an action is in question, every act of force sets a newprecedent is set and we can trace an evolution back to the former act offorce.
Common topics in this essay:
Afghanistan Iraq,
Security Council,
United State's,
York Times,
United British,
UN Kosovo,
According Guicherd,
According Byers,
Madeline Albright,
United States',
international law,
security council,
justification force,
afghanistan iraq,
international community,
resolution 1373,
set precedent,
kosovo afghanistan iraq,
actions kosovo,
kosovo afghanistan,
un security,
un security council,
course action relation,
impacted international law,
waller et al,
|
Acceptance Essays
