@Were the actions taken by the UN legitimate? Legitimacy is defined by Franck as a property of a rule or rule making institution which itself exerts a pull toward compliance on those addressed normatively because those addressed believe that the rule or institution has come into being and operates in accordance with generally accepted principles of right process. The UN Security is supposed to be, in practice, the final arbitrator of its final authority for the new world order that is claimed for tomorrow. However, in actuality there is a lack of legitimacy, and the author shows this by diving into four aspects; the indeterminacy of the legal authority of Res 678, the great power pressure diplomacy, its unrestricted character, and in the Councilfs hasty retreat from nonviolent sanctioning alternatives permissible under it. These are all interconnected in some way, and they all show that the UN S.C did not act in accordance to the core principles and purposes of the UN in settling international disputes.
             The indeterminate legal authority for Resolution 678
             In resolution 660, the UN explicitly stated that they were acting under Art. 39 and 40 of the charter. However, in res 678 that precision was not used, at least in the use of force. This ambiguity is dangerous. Therfore the author talks about several articles that this enforcement could have been under.
             Article 42(the authorization of the SC to take military actions)-was not the legal basis for the use of military force. Why? Because of the articles dependant relationship with article 43, pursuant to which the UN membership consents to provide the SC on its call and in accordance with special agreements with armed forces, assistance and facilities to effectuate article 42. Since this makes it so whatever military action the SC might take to ensure intfl peace and security have to be premised otherwise, this article is considered a dead letter.
             Article 51 (coll...