-
The United Nations Security Council And International Conflict Resolution
[A CASE STUDY OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL WEAPON INSPECTION IN IRA]
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 1 of 4
-
-
-
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The United
Nations Organization was formed in 1945; it was to be a universal single
purpose organization that would promote world peace and security. In
order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its
members confer on the Security Council the primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in
carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council
acts on their behalf.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is
the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining international
peace and security among nations. While other organs of UN only make
recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the
power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under
Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, which reads “the members of
the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council in accordance with the president charter. The decisions
of the Council are known as UNSC Resolutions. The Council is made up of
15 Member States, consisting of five permanent seats and ten temporary
seats. The five permanent seats are China, France, Russia, The United
Kingdom and the United States. These big five hold veto power over
substantive but not procedural resolutions. The ten temporary seats
voted in by the UN General Assembly on a regional basis. The presidency
of the Security Council is rotated alphabetically each month.
The
Security Council performs these functions on the basis of a universal
phenomenon that has come to be known as collective security. This is a
system in which aggression against a state is taken to be aggression
against all that are parties to the treaty; consequently, a collective
action is to be taken by other states to counter such an aggression. A
good example was in 1991, when the United States led a coalition force
of about 23 countries in a battle code- named “Operation Desert Stormâ€
on Iraq for the formers invasion and annexation of Kuwait on August 2,
1990.
Resolution 687, adopted in 3 April 1991 set out terms of cease
fire which demanded respect of inviolability of Iraq- Kuwait border, as
well as inspection and destruction of Iraq’s weapon which range greater
than 150 kilometres, together with related items paragraph 9 of the
Resolution provided for the creation of the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) with the mandate to implement immediate on- site
inspections of Iraq’s chemical, biological and missile Capabilities, on
the basis both of Iraq’s own declarations and of the designation of the
special Commission itself. Iraq was equally obliged to declare its
nuclear material, equipment and sub-systems to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
A major reason given by the Bush administration
for waging war on Iraq was that she possessed Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) as well as had links with al-Qaeda (Osama Bin laden
and Saddam Hussein). This led to the adumbration of a doctrine of
“pre-emption†by the Bush administration; in Blair’s words, “it is a
matter of time unless we act and take a stand before terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction come together, and I regard them as two
sides of the same coinâ€.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
In the period before
the war, when it became apparent that a specific UN Security Council
authorization was unlikely, States and international lawyers criticized
the proposed US-led military action in Iraq as unlawful since this
action was not a case of self- defence. To the extent that the invasion
was based on a claim of anticipatory self- defence, Article 51 has been
stretched beyond endurance. Secondly, to the extent that the invasion
was based on claims of threats to international peace and security
sufficient under Chapter vii to justify Security Council authorization,
but with those claims poorly argued and the council eventually by
passed, the credibility of the whole Charter system has again been
frontally challenged. And thirdly, to the extent that the invasion was
based on Saddam Hussein’s record of tyranny over his people- but again,
poorly and inconsistently argued, and with the council by passed – we
have almost choked at birth what many were hoping was an emerging new
norm justifying intervention on the basis of the principle of
“responsibility to protectâ€.
Finally, this work would analyse the war
on Iraq and its implications for international law. The law is clear,
no amount of weapons a state has whether chemical, biological, and
nuclear, laser and blinding weapons can be conceived as an attack by the
possessor state against another state. Such possession may however be
styled by the UN as constituting a threat to peace. A threat to National
Security is not a recognized basis for use of force. President Bush, in
giving the President of Iraq Saddam Hussein, a 48 hours ultimatum to
leave Baghdad said: “the United State of America has the Sovereign
authority to use force in assuring its own national securityâ€. It
becomes the task of this thesis to ascertain whether every state can
launch a pre-emptive war against any state, she regards as a threat to
her national security, which implies that international law no longer
exists for nations to obey or that international law only entitled the
right of pre-emptive war on the United State of America. Nevertheless,
the study will be guided by the following research questions.
Did the
UN Security Council Support for the invasion of Iraq help eliminate the
production of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
Did the UN Security Council Sanctions on Iraq help minimize the Iraqis quest
For Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Did the IAEA of the UN fail to discover Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The
broad objective of this study is to critically examine the UNSC and
International Conflict Resolution. Whereas the specific objectives of
the study are:
To determine whether the UN Security Council Support
for the invasion of Iraq helped eliminate the production of Weapons of
Mass Destruction in Iraq.
To determine whether the UN Security Council Sanctions on Iraq helped minimize the Iraqis quest for Weapon of Mass Destruction.
To determine whether the IAEA of the UN discover Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This
study has both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically,
this research seeks to contribute and bring fresh insight to the
understanding of the UN Security Council Weapon Inspection in Iraq. As a
result it will reveal how America, invaded Iraq. Therefore, the
significance of this thesis is predicated on the fact that it would
re-echo, the need for nations to support the concept of collective
security, a process in which all members of the international community
join strengths to deter or punish those who resort to violence and
aggression and discourage unilateral action on the part of powerful
nations in pursuance of its national interest. The study will add to
existing literature in this area and serve as a reference material for
students and scholars with interest Weapon Inspection in Iraq. We hope
that the study will stimulate further investigation in this area as
little or no research has be done regarding Weapon Inspection in Iraq.
At
the Practical level, the findings of this study willhighlight the role
the United Nations Security Council played in trying to discourage and
prevent the United States from attacking Iraq. This work will help to
reaffirm and increase the moral status of the UNSC among States
especially third world States (the weaker and vulnerable members of the
international system who depend upon these institutions to protect their
sovereign status). This work hopes to make a modest contribution by way
of addition to the extant literature on the US-led war on Iraq and its
implication for international law by showing that, both the UN Charter
and international law made adequate provisions for peaceful settlement
of disputes among States.
This work is equally important as it will
act as a light and a guide on the paths of powerful States not to use
their privileged positions in the UN to telescope and interfere with any
UNSC weapons inspection activities in the future. Finally and most
importantly, this work will show that, the United States and the United
Kingdom stand accused of having waged an aggressive war against Iraq,
exactly the same crime of which Iraq was accused in 1990 following the
invasion and occupation of Kuwait. International law protects the
sovereignty of disagreeable regimes, just as it did not matter in 1990
whether Kuwait was well governed, so it was irrelevant to this
indictment that the governing regime in Iraq in 2003 was deeply
unpleasant. Also, the findings of this study will help policy makers in
Africa and Nigeria in particular to weigh options critically before
acting especially, in international politics where betrayal has become
almost a norm of statecraft.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 1 of 4
-
-
ABSRACT - [ Total Page(s): 1 ]This research effort grew out of concern for the increasing use of force in settlement of disputes by the United States which has the tendency to reduce the moral stature of the UN (above all, the security council) an organization committed to the maintenance of international peace and security. It seeks to analyse the role of the United Nations security council in international conflict resolution, using tonal conflict resolution, using the UN Weapons inspection in Iraq as a case study. This re ... Continue reading---
