К вопросу о правомерности применения воен- ной силы иностранными государствами (на примере Сирии).

According to the UN Charter (Article 26), the UN Security Council is the primary organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Nuclear states agreed to the adoption of a UN Security Council Resolution that provided positive security assurances. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution №255 on June 19, 1968, was of particular significance. This resolution stipulated that instances of aggression involving the use of nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon state would require immediate action by the UN Security Council and its permanent members, who are nuclear-armed states. The aim of the work is to determine the role of the UN Security Council in the system of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The methodological basis of the study will focus on the analysis and understanding of the impact of the UN Security Council on strategies and measures aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the international context. The results of our research have shown that the role of the UN Security Council in the disarmament of Iraq’s nuclear program, which could have led to the development of nuclear weapons, proved to be significant. To achieve this, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution №687 adopted on April 3, 1991, the Special Commission (UNSCOM) was established. During an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council at the highest level on September 24, 2009, Resolution UN Security Council Resolution № 1887 was adopted, aimed at supporting nuclear non-proliferation, criticizing Iran and North Korea. Resolution №1887 outlines measures to strengthen control and the rights of nuclear-weapon states to demand the return of nuclear materials and equipment in case of violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or withdrawal from it. It also involves enhancing security measures for the storage of nuclear materials and strict export controls. Conclusions. In our opinion, the powers of the UN Security Council in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should be utilized more promptly and effectively. The insufficient effectiveness of this international mechanism in preventing proliferation remains a cause for serious concern among UN members worldwide. To enhance the effectiveness of the UN Security Council, we propose the adoption of a comprehensive resolution that includes provisions on the procedure for a state’s withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its violation of commitments to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. This resolution should stipulate the imposition of sanctions against such a state based on a special report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Such a mechanism can ensure an effective impact of the international community on states that withdraw from the NPT.

Since 2006 to 2017 the Security Council has passed a resolution on North Korea's nuclear test act. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that Members of the United Nations agree to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with this Charter. North Korea as a UN member state that obtained the UN Security Council Resolution is obliged to implement the sanctions resolution. However, the sanctions contained in the resolution did not make North Korea stop its nuclear program and it shows North Korea's noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Implications accompanying any denial by North Korea against the UN Security Council resolution which in general affects four fields, namely the fields of economy, politics, defense and international cooperation. In addition to non-military sanctions, the Security Council under chapter VII Article 42 of the UN Charter can impose military sanctions where possible, the Security Council can also impose sanctions through the UN General Assembly on its recommendation to suspend the rights of UN membership) and expulsion of a country from UN membership).

This article considers US-French collaboration on Lebanon, especially between 2004 and 2008. It examines the political background to such collaboration and its manifestations at the United Nations Security Council and in the two powers' relations with Lebanon, Syria, and other regional players. We argue that the changed political landscape in the Middle East following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq (particularly Syrian policy in Lebanon and towards Iraq) as well as developments in the Lebanese theater since the turn of the 21st century prompted such collaboration. After briefly discussing the insights of Realist and Liberal Internationalist theories of international relations, the article concludes that Daniel Deudney's Republican Security Theory offers the most plausible explanation for US-French collaboration on Lebanon. The literature on the international relations of the Middle East has devoted limited attention to how the United States and major European powers (primarily France and Britain, but increasingly the European Union) have worked together or at cross-purposes in pursuit of their interests in the region. Published work tended to emphasize US-European rivalries and competition, highlighting how the United States in the late 1940s and 1950s sought to replace France and Britain as the dominant power in the region.1 Breaking away from the trend that stresses conflict among the major powers, this article analyzes US-French collaboration on Lebanon since 2004. In addition to highlighting the significance of Lebanon to the US-French rapprochement in the aftermath of the Iraq War, this article addresses a number of questions regarding why France and the United States decided to work together in Lebanon and the implications of their close collaboration for the Lebanese internal situation and for US-French relations in the Middle East. We will first consider the ebbs and flows in US-French relations from the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the United States until the passage of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1559 (September 2004) which was, from the outset, a joint USFrench initiative. We will then look at how the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005 drove France and the United States to intensify their collaboration on Lebanon. The third section examines how the two powers responded to the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah and subsequent developments in Lebanon that weakened their local partners. Fourth, we shed light on the relative merits of Realist and Liberal Internationalist explanations for the emergence of US-French collaboration. Finally, the conclusion suggests that Daniel Deudney's Republican Security Theory does a better job than Realism and Liberal Internationalism in explaining US-French collaboration in Lebanon.2 US-French relati ons from the attac ks of 9/11 until the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 The United States and France have been significant players on the Middle East scene for many decades. While their long and sustained engagement in the affairs of the region has led to a number of collisions,3 the overall relationship remained sufficiently amicable to permit collaboration whenever the two countries perceived their interests as converging. Thus, in the 1980s, the United States and France collaborated to deny Iran victory in its long war with Iraq; and in 1990, France, despite its initial push for a diplomatic solution, joined the military coalition that the United States formed to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and later took part in the UN-sanctioned surveillance operation that established no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.4 The 21st century brought opportunities for both conflict and cooperation. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the French government and media expressed solidarity with the United States. France's leading newspaper Le Monde carried the headline: Nous sommes tous Americains! …

This chapter explains the UN Security Council referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC. It exposes NGOs, activists, and experts promoting activities to investigate and stop the crimes. It also shows the leadership of international and national officers like Colin Powell and Kofi Annan. The US adopted a restricted interpretation of the Genocide Convention obligation to prevent the commission of genocide. The Rome Statute changed the UN Security Council’s functioning without changing the UN Charter. French permanent representative mobilized the “ICC-9” forcing the United States to accept the referral while respecting the American Service Patriot Act (ASPA). Before opening an investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor produced an Article 53 report analyzing the Darfur situation in terms of jurisdiction, complementarity, gravity, and the interest of justice.

Introduction. The relevance of the study of sanctions as a tool of US foreign policy lies in the fact that today sanctions have become so rapid that they have become one of the most important mechanisms in modern international relations. The relevance of this study is confirmed by the fact that taking a strong place in the foreign policy of many countries and international organizations, sanctions have become an alternative or addition to the use of force to force individual states to fulfill the political demands of the countries initiating sanctions. In the context of globalization of the world economy, the process of intensification of the application of sanctions policies by individual states is taking place in order to increase its role in the international arena. Given that today sanctions are the leading instrument of foreign policy and are considered as a compromise response to undesirable actions of a particular state, it is necessary to consider the legal and institutional framework for their implementation. Materials and methods. As the materials of the study were taken data presented in both monographic studies and journalistic articles of domestic, but to a greater extent foreign experts in the field of international law and the General modern history. The article is written on the basis of an international legal analysis of the articles of the UN Charter, resolutions of the UN Security Council, as well as a detailed historical and comparative analysis of the legal framework for the application of EU sanctions, the United States, RF and Canada. Results. The results of the study showed that sanctions international legal relations are based on the Charter of the United Nations (Article 39 and 44), and are implemented through the resolutions of the UN Security Council. Having identified a threat to peace or international security, the UN Security Council has the right, on the basis of a collectively adopted decision, to attract the offending object to international responsibility, that is, to impose sanctions measures against it. At the disposal of the UN Security Council there are special sanctions committees that are engaged in the implementation of sanctions policy. Conclusions. Today the UN has a streamlined legal and institutional mechanism for the implementation of international sanctions. If we consider the sanctions imposed by individual states, in most cases the mechanism of introducing the same, as a rule, decision on the adoption of sanctions is entrusted to the president and the executive authorities. In addition, each state in the issue of the introduction of restrictive measures is repelled by its national legislation. Sanctions as an instrument of American government influence have undergone major changes. Their effectiveness has increased significantly over the past twenty years, so the United States aims to continue to provide a solid foundation for the effectiveness of the sanctions policy for many years.

Le droit de l'occupation était une composante importante du régime juridique applicable en Irak jusqu' au transfert de souveraineté au gouvernement intérimaire irakien, en juin 2004- Les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité relatives à l'Irak, en particulier la résolution 1483, constituaient, elles aussi, un élément significatif de ce régime juridique, un élément qui n' était cependant pas nécessairement compatible à tous égards avec le droit de l'occupation. L'auteur examine la relation entre le droit de l'occupation et la résolution 1483 du Conseil de sécurité en Irak et la question de savoir si – et le cas échéant, à quelles conditions – le Conseil de sécurité peut déroger au droit de l'occupation. Il analyse à cette fin les articles pertinents de la Charte des Nations Unies. L'article soulève ensuite une interrogation: le Conseil de sécurité a-t-il effectivement dérogé au droit de l'occupation dans le cas de l'Irak? Pour y répondre, l'auteur étudie la résolution 1483 ainsi que la pratique des États en la matière.

The concept of self-defense takes such an important place in the UN Charter and international law. The concept of collective self-defense should also be interpreted and applied within the clear parameters of stated principles of the UN Charter. This is not a concept that can be elastically applied so as to cover a wide range of instances that require military action by like-minded States acting in response to contingent situations. The discussion of collective self-defense within the specific context of Japan at the moment, however, seems to involve issues larger than or beyond the traditional concept of self-defense. Arguably, some aspects of the issues posed seem to fall under the collective security realm which is reserved to the authority of the UN Security Council or which at least requires authorization or delegation from the Security Council. Using the term collective self-defense to address a wide spectrum of military contingencies to be tackled by collective security regime may not square with the provisions of the UN Charter.

The Freedom of Movement of United Nations' Peacekeeping Forces: UNIFIL's Mission in Lebanon

The subject of the study is the role of the UN Security Council in the international system of countering money laundering and terrorist financing. The author pays special attention to the historical component, identifying the reasons for the transformation of the UN approach to money laundering and terrorist financing and tracing the link between the globalization of terrorist acts and the development of counteraction by the UN Security Council. The main functions of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC of the UN Security Council) and the Executive Directorate (CTED of the UN Security Council) are outlined. The article reveals the role of a number of UN Security Council documents as a systemically significant source of law in the context of the international system for countering money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as individual problems faced by states implementing the norms of resolutions into their national legislation. The methodological basis of the study was a combination of general scientific (logical method and analysis) and private scientific methods (comparative legal, historical legal, historical and sociological). The article systematically details the development of the UN Security Council's approach to the problem of money laundering and terrorist financing. Through careful consideration of individual provisions of the resolutions, the role of this UN Security Council and its bodies in developing measures and countering ML/FT is being specified. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that the UN Security Council has played a systemically significant role in the formation of an international system for countering money laundering and terrorist financing, consolidating a number of advanced international standards developed by international organizations, para-organizations and other institutions. In addition, the author clarifies that it is thanks to the UN Security Council that it is possible to further "solidify" the FATF Recommendations and their full implementation into the international legal system.

<p>On December 4, 2015, the Bundestag agreed to the participation of German troops in the Western-led military campaign against the so-called Islamic State or ISIS in Syria.</p><p>This article will discuss whether the military campaign Germany is now supporting is justified under international law. The main argument put forward by the German Government is that the use of force against ISIS targets in Syria is justified based on UN Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015) and Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Germany thus seems to be claiming that it is engaged in collective self-defence against ISIS in support and at the request of Iraq and France.</p><p>It will be shown that this line of argument is not convincing. Resolution 2249 does evidently not authorize the use of force. Article 51, on the other hand, while explicitly permitting the use of force in response to an armed attack, is limited to attacks imputable to another state. ISIS, however, is neither a state, nor is it directed by a state.</p><p>Having found the German Government’s arguments to be unpersuasive, the article will then turn to customary international law as a possible source of justification. Has customary international law, especially in the aftermath of the use of force against Afghanistan under the Taliban in the aftermath of 09/11, evolved in such a way so as to now permit the use of force in self-defence against non-state actors on another state’s territory without that state’s consent?</p><p>Based on state practice prior and subsequent to Afghanistan it will be shown that customary international law does currently not justify the Western-led military campaign against ISIS in Syria. Bearing in mind that Syria’s Government, in contrast to the Afghan Taliban Government’s attitude towards Al-Qaeda in 2001, is itself attempting to fight ISIS, it must therefore be concluded that Germany’s participation in the Western-led military campaign is unlawful.</p>

Large nations do not like calling for outside intervention, whether diplomatic or military, to help in dealing with conflict within their own sphere of influence, let alone within their own sovereign boundaries. No country has demonstrated that more clearly than the UK, which until 1994 rejected internationalizing its peace effort in relation to the long-standing Irish conflict. Many nations also guard zealously that provision in the UN Charter which ensures the ‘inherent right of individual or collective self-defence’, and the limitation in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter which states that ‘nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state’. Yet while this UN wording has undoubtedly inhibited international intervention in the past, it has not prevented it. In the early 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, the balance shifted subtly in the Security Council in favour of some forms of international humanitarian intervention, both diplomatic and military. But Russia, and particularly China, had deep reservations. The onus of proof for any external intervention in an internal conflict was still on those who wished to intervene. The humanitarian duty to intervene, or, as the French say, devoir d'ingerence , was given legitimacy under the UN Charter when on 5 April 1991 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 688, strongly advocated by the then British Prime Minister, John Major, to deal with the Kurdish refugee crisis caused by the military action of the Iraqi government. President Mitterrand said: ‘for the first time, noninterference has stopped at the point where it was becoming failure to assist a people in danger’. This action, under Chapter VII establishing a ‘no fly zone’ in Iraq, still operates in the north, but the Kurds live uneasily under constant threat and on the Security Council Russia, China and France were by 1998 against this intervention. In the context of Somalia, in Resolution 794, passed on 3 December 1992, the Security Council authorized intervention, again under Chapter VII, because there was a humanitarian crisis and virtually no government in the capital, Mogadishu. The US was in the lead with US commanders controlling the UN operation.

The point of departure in the present article is that the UN Security Council must be reformed. But this reform should not focus on extending the membership of the Council, which seems to be the main issue in the discussion at present. It is imperative that the Council is maintained as an executive organ since this is a precondition for its effective functioning. Too many members would destroy this requirement completely, in particular if additional members are granted veto power. Already 15 members may be past the limit for an executive organ. Additional members will endanger the Council’s ability to fulfil its obligations under Art. 24 of the UN Charter: the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Instead, the reform should focus on resolving the real problem with the Council, namely the manner in which the permanent members sometimes behave. The exercise of the veto power must be in conformity with the UN Charter, which now must be viewed against the background of the development of international law since the UN was established more than 70 years ago. The manner in which some permanent members exercise their veto power is simply not in conformity with the Charter. Against this background it is absolutely necessary that the five permanent members engage in a profound discussion about their performance and the manner in which the veto power is exercised. Here, there is need for statesmanship. The members of the Security Council, and in particular the permanent members, must lead by example. What the Council must focus on is conflict prevention. This requires determination and consequence. The focus must be on the challenges that humankind is facing and will face ever more in the future and the threats to international peace and security that these challenges are causing. The need for the rule of law and protection of human rights are obvious elements in this analysis. Furthermore, the growth of the world population in combination with climate change simply must be addressed in an effective manner. The Council must focus attentively on these ‘conflict multipliers’. The discussion must also focus on peacekeeping and responsibility to protect. With respect to responsibility to protect there is great need for improvement. We cannot accept in the 21st century that fundamental human rights are violated and that crimes against international humanitarian law are being committed on a large scale without consequences. Another important element in this context is empowerment of women. In addressing these questions there is need for close cooperation with regional organizations. This cooperation already exists, but the question is how it can be developed and what lessons can be learnt from the past. Since the five permanent members are also recognized as nuclear-weapon States under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, they must confirm their obligations under this treaty and make serious their obligation to work for a nuclear-weapon free world. A reform along the lines discussed in the present article can be made without amending the UN Charter.

This chapter concentrates on the basic political and legal dynamics of decision-making on the Security Council. The Security Council is a part of the United Nations and is based on a treaty, the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter gave the Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the power to make binding decisions, and to carry out enforcement actions in cases of threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression. The Security Council needs to act in a consistent manner and avoid the impression of applying double standards. This may require the Security Council itself to adopt general guidelines for future action, such as when to intervene in man-made humanitarian disasters. Keywords: decision-making; international law; UN charter; UN Security Council

This chapter discusses the application of jus contra bellum in the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas conflict. After briefly setting out the relevant facts and summarizing the positions of the main protagonists of the conflict as well as the UN Security Council and General Assembly and other member states, it analyzes the legal issues raised by the application of Article 2(3), 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter, before evaluating the precedential value of the case. Special attention is paid to the alleged right to use military force for the recovery of pre-colonial titles, to the thesis of the exhaustion of the obligation to settle international disputes peacefully and to the relationship between collective security and self-defence, especially in light of the cessation of hostilities ordered by UN Security Council Resolution 502 (1982).

PurposeThis paper seeks to examine the extent to which Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Special Recommendations and UN Security Council Resolutions on the financing of terrorism have been implemented by countries and the legal issues relating to the implementation of these requirements.Design/methodology/approachIt uses the findings from a review of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which is based on a sample of 18 countries that were assessed on their compliance with the FATF 40 + 9 Recommendations (which include the FATF Special Recommendations and UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373) between March 2004 and August 2005.FindingsIt analyses the extent to which the FATF Special Recommendations and UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373 have been implemented, and in particular, the areas which countries have difficulties in complying fully with the requirements and related issues. It also discusses the difficulties with applying international law instruments such as UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373 where measures were aimed at non‐state actors and their assets, as well as the need for ensuring that persons affected by these measures have adequate legal recourses.Originality/valueIn countering the financing of terrorism, the paper discusses the design of a new international legal framework, which requires development of new concepts. It suggests that, by addressing the legal challenges created by these new concepts, the latter can be further refined, improved and strengthened.