Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter

Last updated

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained in Chapter VII. [1] [2] [3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

Nature of resolutions under Chapter VI

There is a general agreement among legal scholars outside the organization that resolutions made under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) are not legally enforceable, although this does not preclude them being described as legally binding. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] One argument is that since they have no enforcement mechanism, except self-help, they may not be legally enforceable. [13] Some States give constitutional or special legal status to the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions. In such cases non-recognition regimes or other sanctions can be implemented under the provisions of the laws of the individual member states. [14]

The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs was established because "Records of the cumulating practice of international organizations may be regarded as evidence of customary international law with reference to States' relations to the organizations." [15] The repertory cites the remarks made by the representative of Israel, Mr Eban, regarding a Chapter VI resolution. He maintained that the Security Council's resolution of 1 September 1951 possessed, within the meaning of Article 25, a compelling force beyond that pertaining to any resolution of any other organ of the United Nations, in his view the importance of the resolution had to be envisaged in the light of Article 25, under which the decisions of the Council on matters affecting international peace and security assumed an obligatory character for all Member States. The Egyptian representative disagreed. [16]

Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali related that during a press conference his remarks about a "non-binding" resolution started a dispute. His assistant released a hasty clarification, which only made the situation worse. It said that the Secretary had only meant to say that Chapter VI contains no means of ensuring compliance and that resolutions adopted under its terms are not enforceable. When the Secretary finally submitted the question to the UN Legal Advisor, the response was a long memo the bottom line of which read, in capital letters: "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE." The Secretary said, "I got the message." [17]

Prof. Jared Schott explains that "Though certainly possessing judicial language, without the legally binding force of Chapter VII, such declarations were at worst political and at best advisory". [18]

In 1971, a majority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) members in the Namibia advisory opinion held that the resolution contained legal declarations that were made while the Council was acting on behalf of the members in accordance with Article 24. The Court also said that an interpretation of the charter that limits the domain of binding decision only to those taken under Chapter VII would render Article 25 "superfluous, since this [binding] effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter", and that the "language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect". [19] The ICJ judgment has been criticized by Erika De Wet and others. [20] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding. Her reasoning, in part states:

Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterized by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression. [21]

Others disagree with this interpretation. Professor Stephen Zunes asserts that "[t]his does not mean that resolutions under Chapter VI are merely advisory, however. These are still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they do not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of military force". [22] Former President of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins argues that the location of Article 25, outside of Chapter VI and VII and with no reference to either, suggests its application is not limited to Chapter VII decisions. [23] She asserts that the Travaux préparatoires to the UN Charter "provide some evidence that Article 25 was not intended to be limited to Chapter VII, or inapplicable to Chapter VI." [24] She argues that early state practice into what resolutions UN members considered binding has been somewhat ambiguous, but seems to "rely not upon whether they are to be regarded as "Chapter VI or "Chapter VII" resolutions [...] but upon whether the parties intended them to be "decisions" or "recommendations" ... One is left with the view that in certain limited, and perhaps rare, cases a binding decision may be taken under Chapter VI". [25] She supports the view of the ICJ that "clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis ... [and] that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole". [26]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN). It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council resolution</span> UN resolution adopted by the 15 members of the Security Council

A United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) is a United Nations resolution adopted by the fifteen members of the Security Council (UNSC); the United Nations (UN) body charged with "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".

<i>Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons</i>

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons[1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 478</span> United Nations condemnation of Israels attempted annexation of Jerusalem

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on 20 August 1980, is the last of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. UNSC res 478 notes Israel's non-compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 476 and condemned Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "complete and united" capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The UNSC resolutions followed two General Assembly resolutions regarding Israel's actions in East Jerusalem.

The International law bearing on issues of Arab–Israeli conflict, which became a major arena of regional and international tension since the birth of Israel in 1948, resulting in several disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations resolution</span> Formal text adopted by a United Nations body

A United Nations resolution is a formal text adopted by a United Nations (UN) body. Although any UN body can issue resolutions, in practice most resolutions are issued by the Security Council or the General Assembly.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".

The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244</span> 1999 resolution establishing Kosovos UNMIK

United Nations Security Council resolution 1244, adopted on 10 June 1999, after recalling resolutions 1160 (1998), 1199 (1998), 1203 (1998) and 1239 (1999), authorised an international civil and military presence in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and established the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). It followed an agreement by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević to terms proposed by President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari and former Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin on 8 June, involving withdrawal of all Yugoslav state forces from Kosovo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 338</span> 1973 UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War

The three-line United Nations Security Council Resolution 338, adopted on October 22, 1973, called for a ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War in accordance with a joint proposal by the United States and the Soviet Union. The resolution stipulated a cease fire to take effect within 12 hours of the adoption of the resolution. The "appropriate auspices" was interpreted to mean American or Soviet rather than UN auspices. This third clause helped to establish the framework for the Geneva Conference (1973) held in December 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Greenwood</span>

Sir Christopher John Greenwood is Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge and a former British judge at the International Court of Justice. Prior to his election, he was professor of international law at the London School of Economics and a barrister who regularly appeared as counsel before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the English courts, and other tribunals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of the International Court of Justice</span> United Nations statute

The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the United Nations Charter, as specified by Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter, which established the International Court of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 758</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1992

United Nations Security Council resolution 758, adopted unanimously on 8 June 1992, after reaffirming resolutions 713 (1991), 721 (1991), 724 (1991), 727 (1992), 740 (1992) 743 (1992), 749 (1992), 752 (1992) and 757 (1992), the council, in accordance with a report by the Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, decided to enlarge the mandate and strength of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in former Yugoslavia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 788</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1992

United Nations Security Council resolution 788, adopted unanimously on 19 November 1992, after determining that the deterioration of the situation in Liberia constituted a threat to international peace and security, the council imposed an arms embargo on the country for the purposes of establishing peace and stability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 918</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1994

United Nations Security Council resolution 918 was adopted without a vote on 17 May 1994. After reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Rwanda, particularly resolutions 872 (1993), 909 (1994) and 912 (1994), the Council expressed its alarm and condemnation at the continuing large-scale violence, and went on to impose an arms embargo on the country and authorise an expansion of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 929</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1994

United Nations Security Council resolution 929, adopted on 22 June 1994, after recalling all resolutions on Rwanda, including 912 (1994), 918 (1994) and 925 (1994), the council authorised, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the temporary establishment of a multinational operation in the country to assist in humanitarian efforts and protect refugees and displaced people, until the full deployment of the expanded United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 930</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1994

United Nations Security Council resolution 930, adopted unanimously on 27 June 1994, after recalling resolutions 772 (1992) and 894 (1994), the Council noted with satisfaction that a democratic and non-racial government had been established in South Africa, and terminated the United Nations Observer Mission in South Africa (UNOMSA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 954</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1994

United Nations Security Council resolution 954, adopted unanimously on 4 November 1994, after recalling Resolution 733 (1992) and all relevant resolutions on the situation in Somalia and a recent security council mission to the country, the Council noted the lack of progress in the peace process and decided, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to extend the mandate of the United Nations Operation in Somalia II for a final time, until 31 March 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 1044</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 1996

United Nations Security Council resolution 1044, adopted unanimously on 31 January 1996, after noting the assassination attempt on President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak at an Organisation of African Unity (OAU) summit in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on 26 June 1995, demanded that the Government of Sudan comply with OAU requests to extradite suspects sheltered in the country to Ethiopia.

The “Namibia exception” identifies the Advisory opinion issued on 21 June 1971 by the International Court of Justice (I.C.J), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). The opinion refers to the "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)".

References

  1. ↑ Collective Insecurity Archived September 1, 2006, at the Wayback Machine , Harvard International Review,"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council's powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. These resolutions have generally been operative only with the consent of all parties involved. Traditionally, the Chapter has not been interpreted to support collective intervention by member states in the affairs of another member state"
  2. ↑ Possible Extension of the UN Mandate for Iraq: Options Archived January 30, 2009, at the Wayback Machine , 'The basic difference between Chapters VI and VII is that under Chapter VII, the Council may impose measures on states that have obligatory legal force and therefore need not depend on the consent of the states involved. To do this, the Council must determine that the situation constitutes a threat or breach of the peace. In contrast, measures under Chapter VI do not have the same force, and military missions under Chapter VI would rest on consent by the state in question'
  3. ↑ History of failed peace talks, BBC, 2007-11-26
  4. ↑ Köchler, Hans. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power, International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN   3-900704-20-1, p. 21.
  5. ↑ De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adoption of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, Springer, 2005, ISBN   3-540-25299-1, p. 203.
  6. ↑ Werksman, Jacob. Greening International Institutions, Earthscan, 1996, ISBN   1-85383-244-8, p. 14.
  7. ↑ Matthews, Ken. The Gulf Conflict and International Relations, Routledge, 1993, ISBN   0-415-07519-X, p. 130.
  8. ↑ Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 66.
  9. ↑ Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 2001, p. 33.
  10. ↑ Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. Sourcebook on Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN   1-84314-380-1, 1998, p. 568.
  11. ↑ De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1996, p. 371.
  12. ↑ Philippe Sands, Pierre Klein, D. W. Bowett. Bowett's Law of International Institutions, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001, ISBN   0-421-53690-X, p. 46.
  13. ↑ Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1 Jan 1999, p. 113.
  14. ↑ See National implementation of United Nations sanctions: a comparative study, by Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Djacoba Liva Tehindrazanarivelo, Brill, 2004, ISBN   90-04-14090-5; and Recognition and the United Nations, by John Dugard, Cambridge University Press, 1987, ISBN   0-949009-00-8.
  15. ↑ "Ways and means for making the evidence of customary international law more readily available" (PDF). Report of the International Law Commission, 1950. United Nations.
  16. ↑ Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Article 25, Sup. 1, Vol 1, para 5–9. .
  17. ↑ Unvanquished: a U.S.-U.N. saga, By Boutros Boutros-Ghali, I.B. Tauris, 1999, ISBN   1-86064-497-X, p. 189.
  18. ↑ Chapter VII as Exception: Security Council Action and the Regulative Ideal of Emergency Archived 2013-02-02 at the Wayback Machine , page 56
  19. ↑ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Archived 2015-09-08 at the Wayback Machine , Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87–116, especially 113.
  20. ↑ Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht – Menschenrechte – Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN   3-540-23023-8, p. 58.
  21. ↑ De Wet, Erika. The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN   1-84113-422-8, pp. 39–40.
  22. ↑ Zunes, Stephen, "International law, the UN and Middle Eastern conflicts". Peace Review, Volume 16, Issue 3 September 2004 , pages 285 – 292:291.
  23. ↑ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270–286:278.
  24. ↑ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270–286:279.
  25. ↑ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270–286:281–2.
  26. ↑ Higgins, Rosalyn. "The Advisory opinion on Namibia*: Which un Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?" International & Comparative Law Quarterly (1972), 21 : 270–286:286.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.