黄武東與台灣基督長老教會主體意識的變遷(1951-1965)

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

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.

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.

Responsibility to Protect and the Coercive Enforcement of Human Rights

Seated at the famous horseshoe table in the United Nations Security Council chamber in New York on 25 October 1962, US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented fellow Council members with photographic evidence of Soviet missile installations in Cuba. Unveiling the evidence collected by US intelligence services over the previous weeks and months, Stevenson’s performance produced a supreme and memorable moment of Cold War drama. Some 40 years later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, making the case Review Essay

This paper focused on the analysis of enforcement of state responsibility for breaches of some international obligations of an essential nature. These obligations relate to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, and the protection of fundamental human rights. Ali such obligations are considered to be essential and relate to new security challenges; there are, however, certain differences among them when considering the structure of primary obligations and legal consequences of their breach. Treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons, by their nature, encompass obligations erga omnes partes which are interlinked. A breach by one state changes the position of the other State Parties (all-or-nothing obligations). Although classic legal responsibility consequences of unlawful conduct may, due to their erga omnes partes nature, apply only with limitations, the respective regimes established by the treaties rely on special control mechanisms. Erga omnes partes obligations of an integral nature apply primarily in the area of human rights. Such obligations were adopted to protect collective interests. Unlike obligations resulting from disarmament treaties, they represent a different type of obligation. A state may not stop observing human rights due to another state’s violation (i.e. not use symmetric countermeasures). Other parties to such an obligation may, on the other hand, require the responsible state to cease unlawful conduct. This mostly applies only within control mechanisms of a judicial or other nature established by treaties. Obligations arising out of responsibility can be of an erga omnes nature only in the case of violation of human rights obligations created by peremptory norms of general international law. Where multilateral treaties on terrorism are at issue, obligations have a partly bilateral, partly integral obligation character (resembling human rights treaties in this respect). Should a breach occur this gives rise primarily to responsibility of a state inter partes. However, the respective treaties do not provide for a special institutionalised control regime, and in this they differ from the two above-mentioned groups. The gap has recently been filled by resolutions of the UN Security Council establishing obligations erga omnes the breach of which may give rise to responsibility under general international law of a similar nature. Enforcement of obligations relating to the prohibition and non-proliferation of WMD and the fight against terrorism does not require new individual coercive means. First, states may use countermeasures without the use of farce. Second, collective coercive measures may be sometimes used instead of individual means upon the recommendation or decision of a body of the respective international organisation. Third, the use of farce may serve as an extreme means of coercion if it has been so decided by the UN Security Council according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Fourth, should a serious and imminent threat occur states may not be deprived of the right to individua] or collective self-defence. The situation seems to be much more complicated in the case of extremely serious violations of erga omnes obligations to protect human rights. However, individual or collective countermeasures free from force may not be excluded although their efficiency is usually disputable. The Security Council has proven that such cases can be designated as a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter. Its permission is required for states to intervene using force. However, the right to self-defence may not be invoked due to the substance of the issue. If force were used for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide or mass violation of basic human rights, or to enforce responsibility erga omnes, the existing international law does not permit the use of individua) armed countermeasures. Considering the issue from the point of view of international legal rules de lege lata, humanitarian intervention cannot yet be regarded as legal no matter what criteria for its legitimacy may exist. Instead, it is necessary to seek a strengthening of collective coercive mechanisms. Therefore the latest proposals of institutional reform of the UN, which result, among other things, from a newly defined responsibility to protect, could be very important.

media-genic: countries debate, votes are taken, drama abounds as when Colin Powell made his case for intervention in Iraq. The Council's composition is sup posed to reflect coercive power in the world, and it is the only institution whose decisions are expected to be binding on all member states of the UN. Sometimes it does not seem to work well and reformers want to change its composition bet ter to reflect current power. The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority seeks to encour age us to think differently about the institution, reflecting radically alternative way to conceptualize power in supranational institutions. It is different from the usual take on the Security Council, which can focus on process and issues dealt with, like Edward Luck's (2006) UN Security Council: Practice and Promise, or David Malone's (1998) analysis of the specific case of Haiti in his Decision-making in the UN Security Council, or Chinmaya Gharekhan's (2006) personal memoire in The Horseshoe Table: An Inside View of the UN Security Council. Bruce Cronin and Ian Hurd start the process in their introductory chapter, which sets out their focus on authority and legitimacy as key factors in the Council's effectiveness. Authority here means a relation among actors within hierarchy in which one group is recognized as having both the rights and the competence to make binding decisions for the rest of the community... (p. 6). As such it is related to legitimacy, form of very soft power. Hurd's next chapter elaborates on this and sets up tests of authority as way of assessing the Council. This is based on Hurd's earlier work on legitimacy in After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Hurd 2007). Eric Voeten's chapter on the nature of Security Council authority combines an institutionalist and realist perspective on how decision making can be seen as bargaining between public goods perspective (peace and security are good for everyone) and private goods perspective (a given State's national interest). He shows that the decision-making process is evolving in such way that agree ment in the Security Council is becoming increasingly important. Bruce Cronin's chapter on how international consensus has expanded the Security Council's legal authority is central argument in the volume. It demon strates that consensus, which is the prevailing means of decision making at the international level, allows international law to develop. As he notes, ...it reflects the growth of legal norms that are derived not from individual state consent,

The UN Security Council has authorized Member States to adopt unprecedented measures to combat piracy in Somalia. While authorizing all necessary measures against pirates, the UN Security Council has deemed it necessary to indicate that such measures must be consistent with international humanitarian and human rights law (Res. 1851 of 16 December 2008). The contextual application of these two distinct branches of law to anti-piracy operations gives the individuals concerned, such as the hostages or the suspected pirates, major protection for their rights. However, there is a problem of coordination between international humanitarian law and human rights. Jurisprudence and the practice of non-judicial control mechanisms have tried to define the relationship between the system of human rights and humanitarian issues. This article aims to analyze the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights, and to determine, through the interaction of both systems, the level of protection that will apply during anti-piracy operations.

Reawakened from its long slumber during the Cold War, the UN Security Council has become more active than ever before. Increased UN activity, however, has not always spelled increased accountability and control. This problem becomes particularly acute in the case of UN decisions imposing targeted economic sanctions on individuals who are suspected of sponsoring terrorism. These sanctions, or the process by which the decisions on sanctions are reached, have been in considerable tension with international as well as domestic conceptions of fundamental rights. When the UN enlists regional organizations and States in taking action against such individuals, the resulting multiplicity of institutions may be a blessing or a curse. The plurality of claims to ultimate legal authority may create multiple veto points checking for the protection of fundamental values or may provide myriad opportunities for obstruction, burden shifting, or evasion of responsibility. The difficulty, then, lies in arriving at an approach that can mediate productively between the needs for collective action and the particular perspective of each institutional participant without losing site of fundamental values, such as human rights. This Article tackles these questions by examining the international human rights constraints that operate on UN authority, and then turning to a discussion of the UN’s economic sanctions regime and the clash of legal orders in recent litigation in the European Courts – especially in the Kadi case – surrounding implementation of that sanctions regime in the European Union and its Member States. We argue that the UN Security Council should be considered bound by human rights; that the EC Treaty provides the European Community with power to implement targeted sanctions; that the relation between the European legal order and that of the UN lacks an ordered hierarchy; and finally, that this pluralist relationship should be managed neither by usurpation nor simple resistance, but by constructive mutual engagement on constitutional as well as international human rights.

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.

The Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) is arguably the world's most chronic abuser of human rights. In an unprecedented move, a Commission of Inquiry established by the UN's Human Rights Council accused the DPRK government of systematic violations of human rights amounting to crimes against humanity. In so doing, the Commission succeeded in putting human rights in the DPRK on the global agenda. Within months the UN's General Assembly and Security Council had joined the human rights body in examining the issue. This article explains the emergence of this new engagement with human rights in the DPRK, showing its relation to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principle. It charts the growing sense of frustration felt at the lack of progress on human rights in DPRK and shows how this was manifested in the General Assembly's decision to pursue the Commission's recommendations and call on the Security Council to take concrete steps. Despite this, however, the article shows that there are powerful obstacles in the way of a more robust international approach to human rights in the DPRK and counsels a less confrontational approach focused on engaging China and building trust within the Security Council.

In the ecumenical conversation about and evangelism in the last decade, there is frequent reference to doing and evangelism in Jesus Christ's way. In 1989, the World Council of Churches (WCC) convened its conference on world and evangelism in San Antonio under the theme, Your Will Be Done: in Christ's Way.(1) In 1987, an international grouping of ecumenical-evangelical missiologists and church leaders met in Stuttgart to consider the forthcoming San Antonio meeting. Their purpose was to think about the evangelistic of the church and to prepare a statement reflecting their insights for the 1989 conference. The result was a book entitled Proclaiming Christ in Christ's Way, Studies in Integral Evangelism.(2) In 1982, the WCC's Commission on World and Evangelism presented its major statement, and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation.(3) It contains a section entitled Mission in Christ's Way. The reception of this language can be traced around the world. In 1991, for example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a document on and evangelism entitled Turn to the Living God: A Call To Evangelism in Jesus Christ's Way,(4) which specifically refers to the WCC statement of 1982.(5) This imagery, doing and evangelism in Jesus Christ's way, indicates a broadening ecumenical consensus about the relationship between the incarnation -- the actual way in which the Word became flesh or the model of Jesus' life -- and the way in which the church goes about its mission. Such an approach (incarnational is apparently a twentieth century neologism) raises a lot of questions, particularly at a time when, in some quarters, the incarnation is itself the theme of heated debate. Therefore, it will be helpful to examine carefully what is occurring theologically when we talk about mission in Jesus Christ's way. When we go back before the appearance of the WCC 1982 document, and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation, we enter into a period of several decades in which most western mainline Protestant traditions tended to de-emphasize evangelism as the verbal proclamation of the gospel with the intent to draw people to personal faith in Christ. The focus was generally more upon the church's social witness and involvement with broad agenda of justice and peace. Often evangelism was redefined as an expression of social witness, so that the word was used for almost anything a mainline denominational agency wanted to affirm. The American Presbyterian version of this process is called by Milton J. Coalter the rethinking, retooling, and restructuring of evangelism, which he dates from about 1963 on.(6) Throughout this period, however, thinking and writing about the of the church never completely disavowed the centrality of the church's evangelistic mission, as awkward as that central tenet of our confessional tradition might have been for some. The emphasis upon incarnational evangelism emerged in various attempts to define the church's witness in ways that sought to include both verbal proclamation and social witness. This approach has now established itself in the concept of mission in Christ's way. It is a genuinely helpful way of thinking, which does not undermine the evangelistic ministry of the church, but rather strengthens it. The emphatic use of this incarnational imagery in the 1982 WCC document, and Evangelism; An Ecumenical Affirmation, shows that such language had achieved a notable ecumenical currency. Such statements emerge from long and difficult processes of drafting and editing which draw together representatives across the full spectrum of churchly traditions and cultures. When they finally agree, then we have language that we can use in the multi-cultural, world-wide church with some hope that we all mean the same things when we say the same words. The publication of and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation in 1982 was a signal event for the theology and practice of mission. …

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.

This article compares two documents from the World Council of Churches (WCC): The Church: Towards a Common Vision , published by the WCC’s Commission on Faith and Order in 2013, and The Gift of Being , published as a joint venture by the WCC’s Ecumenical Disabilities Advocates Network and Faith and Order and presented to the WCC central committee in June 2016. This article explores the concerns of persons with disabilities as ecumenical and ecclesiological issues. These issues tend to be understood as questions of human rights and of working against practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities. However, this article explores how our understanding of these concerns changes if they are seen as ecumenical and ecclesiological questions.

Since its establishment in 2002, the African Union (AU) has accorded particular importance to the establishment of a robust mechanism for effectively responding to conflicts in Africa. This emerging mechanism established under the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council (PSC Protocol) is known as the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). Central to the APSA is the PSC, which, like the UN Security Council, is ‘a standing decision-making organ for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts’. The PSC is vested with expansive powers covering the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in Africa. In this context, the PSC Protocol not only makes numerous direct references to human rights but it also assigns the PSC with specific responsibilities vis-a-vis the protection of human rights. Despite the PSC's express mandate with respect to human rights and the crucial importance and link of human rights to peace and security in Africa, little has however been written and discussed on the subject of human rights from the perspective of the works of the PSC and generally within the context of AU initiatives for the promotion, maintenance and restoration of peace and security in Africa. In an effort to contribute towards filling this lacuna, this article seeks to consider the place of human rights within the mandates of the PSC and the need for and the extent to which they are integrated into the PSC's work for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in Africa