| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
Not enough drugs
Measuring aid impacts
Caused by ill-conceived political decisions
Preventive strikes ‘yes’, unilateral action ‘no’
Half the world’s workers
living below poverty line
01/2005 |
|
[ UN reform ]
Preventive strikes ‘yes’, unilateral action ‘no’
Certain circumstances can justify a pre-emptive military strike against a state, even if that state presents no imminent danger to the rest of the world. For instance, it could be considered sufficient if a country produces nuclear weapons with apparently hostile intentions. But the final decision on such military intervention rests with the UN Security Council alone. Giving one state the right to decide, is to give it to all states. Those who have little faith in the Security Council should help to reform it, so that it can cope with its responsibilities better. The solution is not to ignore and thus further weaken it. These are conclusions reached by a High-level Panel of the United Nations in its report on new international threats and challenges presented in early December. The Panel suggests increasing the Security Council from 15 to 24 members – either through six new permanent seats plus three non-permanent seats, or through eight four-year renewable seats plus one two-year non-permanent seat.
In 2003 Secretary-General Kofi Annan commissioned the Panel to make recommendations for a more secure world based on the lessons learned from the Iraq crisis. According to the report, the greatest future threats are wars between states, violence within states, large-scale human rights abuses and genocide, poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and transnational organised crime. The best defence against all these threats is prevention. The Panel comes out strongly in favour of promoting development – combating poverty – as the most effective way of forestalling security risks.
However, when all non-military options have been explored and there is no alternative, then military action is justified. The Panel sees no need to amend the applicable international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter already allows states to defend themselves by taking pre-emptive action against an imminent attack – they do not have to wait until the first shot has been fired. On the other hand, in the event of latent threats which could escalate, Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take military action. The Panel calls for the Council to be more proactive and resolute in future, and to be prepared to employ this option if necessary. The security situation at the beginning of the 21st century has the potential for “nightmare scenarios” which must be dealt with promptly.
The Security Council can similarly decide to take military action against violence within states as a last resort. The Panel has to a certain extent reversed the burden of proof here. Instead of the UN having to justify its intervention as in the past, the state concerned now has to justify its own inability or unwillingness to protect its people. However, when weighing up the use of force, the Security Council must carefully consider whether the measures are fair and appropriate and whether all other options have been exhausted.
Tensions were high as to how the Panel would react to the subject of terrorism. The report regrets that the UN General Assembly has still not agreed on a definition of terrorism, making it more difficult to take effective action against terror at an international level. Negotiations have broken down in the past, partly because of objections from the Arab states; they believe a definition of terrorism would undermine the Palestinians’ right to resist the Israeli occupation. Yet in the view of the UN Panel, the central point when dealing with terrorism is not that some may contest the right to resistance. “The central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.”
Tillmann Elliesen
|
