Master’s Degree programme
in Comparative International Relations Second Cycle (D.M. 270/2004)
Final Thesis
The United Nations: from the end
of the Cold War to the Bush Doctrine
Supervisor
Ch. Prof.ssa Sara De Vido
Assistant supervisor
Ch. Prof. Antonio Trampus
Graduand
Alice Agnoletto
Matriculation Number 834450
THE UNITED NATIONS: FROM THE END
OF THE COLD WAR TO THE BUSH DOCTRINE
CONTENTS
Abstract I
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: THE UN AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE
USE OF FORCE IN THE CHARTER.
1.1. Foreword: A just war? 6
1.2. The Kellogg-Briand Pact: a first step towards the prohibition of the use of force
11 1.3. Art. 2 and the prohibition of the use of force in the
international system
14 1.4. Articles 37, 39, 41 and 42: the role of the Security
Council
27 1.5. Art. 51 and the right of self-defense 31
1.6. The preemptive self-defense 42
CHAPTER 2: THE FIRST GULF WAR, 1991.
2.1. Foreword: The UN back to the center of the international system
49
2.2. The invasion of Kuwait 51
2.3. The legal consequences 63
CHAPTER 3: THE SECOND GULF WAR, 2003.
3.1. Foreword: 9/11 and the new concept of terrorism 70 3.2. The Bush Doctrine, the National Security Strategy and
Colin Powell's speech to the UN
3.3. SCR 1441 and the Anglo-American invasion in Iraq 88 3.4. The illegal use of force against Iraq 101
CHAPTER 4: THE CURRENT SITUATION.
4.1. The current situation in Iraq 107
4.2. The UN today: are reforms necessary? 117
4.3. The reform of the Security Council 130
4.4. Conclusions 151
CONCLUDING CHAPTER 154
Abstract
C o n l a f i n e d e l l a G u e r r a F r e d d a , l ’ o r d i n e i n t e r n a z i o n a l e c a m b i ò d r a m m a t i c a m e n t e c o s ì c o m e l a s i c u r e z z a g l o b a l e , o g g i g i o r n o s e m p r e p i ù c a r a t t e r i z z a t a d a c o n f l i t t i i n t e r n i i n v e c e c h e i n t e r s t a t a l i . Q u e s t i c o n f l i t t i h a n n o d a t o v i t a a d u n d i b a t t i t o s u l p i a n o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e p e r q u a n t o r i g u a r d a u n a m a g g i o r a d e g u a t e z z a e d e f f i c i e n z a d e l l e r i s p o s t e g a r a n t i t e d a l s i s t e m a d e g l i S t a t i . I t r a g i c i a t t e n t a t i t e r r o r i s t i c i d e l l ’ 1 1 s e t t e m b r e 2 0 0 1 , i n p a r t i c o l a r e , h a n n o d i m o s t r a t o c h e l a n u o v a s f i d a p o s t a d a l t e r r o r i s m o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e d e v e e s s e r e a f f r o n t a t a a l i v e l l o m u l t i l a t e r a l e , i n s i e m e a q u e l l a d a t a d a l l a p r o l i f e r a z i o n e d e l l e a r m i d i d i s t r u z i o n e d i m a s s a e d a i r i s c h i c a u s a t i d a a r m i n o n c o n v e n z i o n a l i . N e l l ’ u l t i m o v e n t e n n i o è s o r t a l a c o n v i n z i o n e c h e i l s i s t e m a d e l l e r e l a z i o n i i n t e r n a z i o n a l i i n i z i a s s e a m o s t r a r e s e g n i d i c e d i m e n t o e c h e l e N a z i o n i U n i t e s i t r o v a s s e r o d i f r o n t e a u n a c r i s i s e m p r e p i ù p r o f o n d a d i l e g i t t i m i t à e c r e d i b i l i t à . I m e z z i a d i s p o s i z i o n e d e l l ’ O N U d o v e v a n o , d u n q u e , e s s e r e r i m o d e l l a t i s u l l a b a s e d i q u e s t e n u o v e e s i g e n z e e , i n p a r t i c o l a r e , p e r q u a n t o r i g u a r d a i c o n f l i t t i c i v i l i , i l C o n s i g l i o d i S i c u r e z z a e m a n ò s e m p r e p i ù r i s o l u z i o n ii n m e r i t o a l l e o p e r a z i o n i d i p a c e . A p a r t i r e d a g l i a n n i ’ 9 0 , i n f a t t i , s i a n d ò a f f e r m a n d o l ’ i d e a c h e l ' O N U p o t e s s e r i a p p r o p r i a r s i d i q u e l r u o l o c e n t r a l e c h e a v e v a p e r s o n e g l i u l t i m i 4 0 a n n i a c a u s a d e l b i p o l a r i s m o d e l l a G u e r r a F r e d d a . I c o n f l i t t i i n t e r n i c h e h a n n o c o m i n c i a t o a r i p e t e r s i p e r i o d i c a m e n t e d a l l a f i n e d e l m i l l e n n i o p o r t a r o n o l ’ O N U a c o n c e n t r a r s i i n m o d o p a r t i c o l a r e s u l c o n s o l i d a m e n t o m a n t e n i m e n t o d e l l a p a c e c o n m i s u r e i l c u i s c o p o e r a q u e l l o d i r i d u r r e i l r i s c h i o d i u l t e r i o r i c o n f l i t t i f u t u r i . A s p i r a n d o a l l a l i m i t a z i o n e d e l r i c o r s o u n i l a t e r a l e a l l a f o r z a a r m a t a ( a r t . 2 , p a r . 4 C a r t a O N U ) , a d e c c e z i o n e d e l l a l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a ( a r t . 5 1 ) , l ’ O N U d e c i s e d i a f f i d a r e i l p o t e r e d e l m a n t e n i m e n t o d e l l a p a c e e d e l l a s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e a l C o n s i g l i o d i S i c u r e z z a ( a r t . 2 4 ) , i l q u a l e r i f l e t t e l a s i t u a z i o n e p o s t S e c o n d a G u e r r a M o n d i a l e c o n g l i S t a t i v i n c i t o r i c o m e 5 m e m b r i p e r m a n e n t i ( C i n a , F e d e r a z i o n e R u s s a , F r a n c i a , I n g h i l t e r r a , S t a t i U n i t i ) e 1 0 S t a t i e l e t t i o g n i d u e a n n i d a l l ’ A s s e m b l e a G e n e r a l e . L a p a c e e l a s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e , a s s i c u r a t e d a l d i v i e t o g e n e r a l e d e l l ’ u s o e d e l l a m i n a c c i a a l l a f o r z a s a n c i t o d a l l ’ a r t . 2 , p a r . 4 , s o n o i l s e r v i z i o m i n i m o c h e l ’ o r g a n i z z a z i o n e s i è p o s t a d a l l a s u a i s t i t u z i o n e , c e r c a n d o d i g a r a n t i r e u n a g e s t i o n e e f f i c a c e d e l l e v i o l a z i o n i d e l d i r i t t o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e . I c a m b i a m e n t i a t t u a l i r i g u a r d a n t i i l d i v i e t o a l l a f o r z a a r m a t a s o n o i n f l u e n z a t i d a u n a p r o f o n d a t r a s f o r m a z i o n e n e l l a n a t u r a d e l l o S t a t o e d e l l a c o m u n i t à i n t e r n a z i o n a l e . A s e g u i t o d e g l i e v e n t i r e c e n t i , n e l l o s p e c i f i c o s e c o n s i d e r i a m o l a S e c o n d a G u e r r a d e l G o l f o d e l
2 0 0 3 , n o n s i p u ò p i ù a f f e r m a r e , p e r ò , c h e l ’ u s o d e l l a f o r z a a b b i a s m e s s o d i g i o c a r e u n r u o l o d e c i s i v o n e l c o n t e s t o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e . D o p o a l c u n e f a s i i m p o r t a n t i n e l l a r e g o l a m e n t a z i o n e d e l d i v i e t o a l l ’ u s o d e l l a f o r z a ( S t a t u t o d e l l a S o c i e t à d e l l e N a z i o n i , P a t t o B r i a n d - K e l l o g g ) , f u s o l o c o n l ’ i n t r o d u z i o n e d e l l a C a r t a O N U n e l 1 9 4 5 c h e i l d i v i e t o p r e v i s t o n e l l ’ a r t . 2 , p a r . 4 d i v e n n e f o n t e g e n e r a l e d e l d i r i t t o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e , a p p a r t e n e n t e a l l o j u s c o g e n s , c o n t e m p l a n t e u n o b b l i g o e r g a o m n e s e s u c c e s s i v a m e n t e r i b a d i t o a n c h e d a l l a C o r t e I n t e r n a z i o n a l e d i G i u s t i z i a n e l l a s e n t e n z a s u l l e A t t i v i t à M i l i t a r i e P a r a m i l i t a r i i n N i c a r a g u a d e l 1 9 8 6 . L a l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a n o n v e n n e i n c l u s a n e l d i v i e t o : r i m a s e , i n f a t t i , l ’ u n i c a e c c e z i o n e p e r m e s s a d a l d i r i t t o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e a i s e n s i d e l l ’ a r t . 5 1 , m e n t r e i l C o n s i g l i o d i S i c u r e z z a e r a l ’ u n i c o o r g a n i s m o a c u i v e n n e c o n c e s s a l ’ a d o z i o n e d i m i s u r e c o e r c i t i v e s i a p a c i f i c h e , a i s e n s i d e l l ’ a r t . 4 1 , s i a m i l i t a r i , s a n c i t e n e l l ’ a r t . 4 2 , i n c a s o d i m i n a c c i a a l l a p a c e , d i v i o l a z i o n e d e l l a p a c e o d i a g g r e s s i o n e ( a r t . 3 9 ) . L e p o t e n z e v i n c i t r i c i d e l l a S e c o n d a G u e r r a M o n d i a l e d e c i s e r o , i n q u e s t o m o d o , i l s i s t e m a d i s i c u r e z z a c o l l e t t i v o r e g o l a t o i n v i r t ù d e l c a p . V I I d e l l a C a r t a . L a d i s t i n z i o n e c o n c e t t u a l e t r a u s o i l l e c i t o e l e c i t o d e l l a f o r z a v e n n e m e s s a p e r i s c r i t t o : d a q u e l m o m e n t o l ’ u s o l e c i t o a v r e b b e a v u t o u n a n a t u r a e s c l u s i v a m e n t e p u n i t i v a . T u t t a v i a , l a g l o b a l i z z a z i o n e h a f a t t o s ì c h e q u a l s i a s i e v e n t o p o t e s s e e s s e r e c o n s i d e r a t o p e r i c o l o p e r l a s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e : d i v e n t a , d u n q u e , d i f f i c i l e d e c i d e r e i n m a n i e r a g e n e r i c a q u a l i s i a n o i
l i m i t i d e l l a d i s c r e z i o n a l i t à d e l C o n s i g l i o i n m e r i t o a l l a v a l u t a z i o n e d e l l a p r a t i c a d e i s u o i p o t e r i c o e r c i t i v i . A i s e n s i d e l l ’ a r t . 3 9 , i l C o n s i g l i o , a c c e r t a t a u n a m i n a c c i a o v i o l a z i o n e a l l a p a c e , p u ò e m a n a r e r a c c o m a n d a z i o n i o d e c i d e r e q u a l i m i s u r e d e b b a n o e s s e r e a d o t t a t e i n c o n f o r m i t à c o n g l i a r t t . 4 1 ( m i s u r e n o n c o m p o r t a n t i l ’ u s o d e l l a f o r z a ) e 4 2 ( m i s u r e c o m p o r t a n t i l ’ u s o d e l l a f o r z a ) c o n l o s c o p o d i f a c i l i t a r e u n a s o l u z i o n e p a c i f i c a t r a l e p a r t i . F i n o a l l ’ i n v a s i o n e d e l K u w a i t d a p a r t e d e l l ’ I r a q n e l 1 9 9 1 , i l C o n s i g l i o s i r i v e l ò r e s t i o n e l l ’ i n v o c a r e i l c a p . V I I d e l l a C a r t a c o m e b a s e p e r l a s u a a u t o r i t à . D a l l o s c o p p i o d e l l a P r i m a G u e r r a d e l G o l f o , l a l u n g a s e r i e d i r i s o l u z i o n i a d o t t a t e d i m o s t r a r o n o c h i a r a m e n t e i l c a m b i o d i a t t e g g i a m e n t o n e l l a p o l i t i c a d e l l ’ o r g a n i s m o n e l l ’ e r a p o s t G u e r r a F r e d d a . L e r i s o l u z i o n i p r e s e i n q u e s t o c o n t e s t o d i v e n n e r o p a r t i c o l a r m e n t e i m p o r t a n t i p e r l ’ e v o l u z i o n e d e l d i r i t t o d e l l a C a r t a , c o m e , p e r e s e m p i o , l a c e l e b r e r i s . 6 6 0 d e l l ’ a g o s t o 1 9 9 0 c o n c u i i l C o n s i g l i o a c c e r t ò l ’ e s i s t e n z a d i u n a v i o l a z i o n e d e l l a p a c e e d e l l a s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e e , a g e n d o a i s e n s i d e g l i a r t t . 3 9 e 4 0 , c o n d a n n ò l ’ i n v a s i o n e d e l l ’ I r a q n e l t e r r i t o r i o d e l K u w a i t , d o m a n d a n d o u n i m m e d i a t o r i t i r o d e l l e t r u p p e i n v a s o r i . P e r l a p r i m a v o l t a l e N a z i o n i U n i t e , d o p o a n n i d i p a r a l i s i d o v u t a a l l a G u e r r a F r e d d a , i n i z i a r o n o a c o m p o r t a r s i c o m e p e a c e - k e e p e r a t t r a v e r s o s a n z i o n i , p r o g r a m m i d i d i s a r m o e c o n t r o l l o d e l l e a r m i , a s s i s t e n z a u m a n i t a r i a , e c c … I n f a t t i , n e s s u n ’ a l t r a c r i s i n e l l a s t o r i a d e l l ’ O N U r i c e v e t t e t a l e a t t e n z i o n e i n c o s ì p o c o t e m p o : d a l l ’ i n i z i o d e l l ’ i n v a s i o n e
n e l l ’ a g o s t o 1 9 9 0 f i n o a l l a f i n e d i n o v e m b r e , i l C o n s i g l i o e m a n ò 1 2 r i s o l u z i o n i a i s e n s i d e l c a p . V I I d e l l a C a r t a , i n p a r t i c o l a r e r i g u a r d a n t i g l i a r t t . 3 9 , 4 0 e 4 1 . I n q u e s t o m o d o , l ’ i n v a s i o n e d e l K u w a i t p r o v o c ò u n a s e r i e d i e v e n t i c h e t r a s f o r m a r o n o i l r u o l o d e l l ’ O N U i n “ p o l i z i o t t o d e l m o n d o ” e l e d i f f e r e n t i f o r m e d i o p e r a z i o n i d i p a c e u s a t e p e r q u e l l o s p e c i f i c o s c o p o . L a p r o g r e s s i v a e s c a l a t i o n d e l l e r i s o l u z i o n i c u l m i n ò c o n l a r i s . 6 7 8 , i l p i ù i m p o r t a n t e t e s t o e l a b o r a t o d a l C o n s i g l i o d o p o l a G u e r r a F r e d d a , l a q u a l e a u t o r i z z ò l ’ i n t e r v e n t o m i l i t a r e c o n t r o l e t r u p p e i r a c h e n e d a n d o o r i g i n e a l l ’ O p e r a z i o n e D e s e r t S t o r m d a p a r t e d i u n a c o a l i z i o n e d i S t a t i , c a p e g g i a t i d a g l i S t a t i U n i t i . I l c o n f l i t t o I r a q - K u w a i t f u i l p r i m o t e s t r e a l e p e r l ’ O N U a p a r t i r e d a g l i a n n i ‘ 9 0 : i n f a t t i , l a g u e r r a d i m o s t r ò c h e i l s i s t e m a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e d e g l i S t a t i M e m b r i p o t e v a d e c i d e r e s u l l a g i u r i d i c i t à d e l d i r i t t o d i l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a e r i t e n e r e n e c e s s a r i a e p r o p o r z i o n a l e l ’ a z i o n e i n t r a p r e s a , d i m o s t r a n d o c o s ì c h e i l s u d d e t t o d i r i t t o p o t e v a f o r n i r e l a b a s e l e g a l e p e r u n ’ a z i o n e d i s i c u r e z z a c o l l e t t i v a . G l i a t t a c c h i d e l l ’ 1 1 s e t t e m b r e 2 0 0 1 p e r p e t r a t i d a l l ’ o r g a n i z z a z i o n e t e r r o r i s t i c a A l - Q a i d a a N e w Y o r k e W a s h i n g t o n D . C . t r a s f o r m ò d r a s t i c a m e n t e i l c o n t e s t o d e l l a s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e c h e v e n n e m e s s o s u b i t o i n d i s c u s s i o n e d a l l ’ a m m i n i s t r a z i o n e B u s h . S i i n i z i ò , i n f a t t i , a d i s c u t e r e i n m e r i t o a l l ’ i n t e r p r e t a z i o n e d e l l ’ a r t . 5 1 e a l l a d o t t r i n a d e l l a l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a p r e v e n t i v a , i n p a r t i c o l a r e , c o n l ’ e l a b o r a z i o n e d e l l a N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y S t r a t e g y f o r m u l a t a d a l P r e s i d e n t e B u s h
n e l 2 0 0 2 . C o n l o s v i l u p p o d e l t e r r o r i s m o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e s u l a r g a s c a l a , i g i u r i s t i i n t e r n a z i o n a l i s i d i v i s e r o t r a c h i r i t e n e v a n e c e s s a r i a u n a s o r t e d i p r e v e n z i o n e c o n t r o q u e s t e n u o v e s f i d e e c h i i n v e c e c o n t i n u a v a a d a t t e n e r s i a l l a t r a d i z i o n a l e i n t e r p r e t a z i o n e d e l l ’ a r t . 5 1 , i n q u a n t o l a d o t t r i n a d e l l a l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a p r e v e n t i v a n o n e r a e n o n è t u t t o r a s u p p o r t a t a d a n e s s u n a b a s e g i u r i d i c a , n é p r e c e d e n t e , n é s u c c e s s i v a a l l ’ a r t i c o l o d e l l a C a r t a . A t t u a l m e n t e , l a m a g g i o r a n z a d e g l i S t a t i r i t i e n e c h e u n a c o n c e z i o n e p i ù a m p i a d e l d i r i t t o d i l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a , i n c l u d e n d o c i u n ’ a z i o n e p r e v e n t i v a , p o t r e b b e r i v e l a r s i u n p e r i c o l o p e r l ’ e q u i l i b r i o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e . I n f a t t i , s e g l i S t a t i d o v e s s e r o c o n f e r m a r e l ’ e s i s t e n z a d e l d i r i t t o d i l e g i t t i m a d i f e s a p r e v e n t i v a , è c h i a r o c h e q u e s t o d o v r à e s s e r e a s s o l u t a m e n t e s e g u i t o d a u n a d e t t a g l i a t a r e g o l a m e n t a z i o n e d e i l i m i t i g i u r i d i c i i n m o d o c h e c h i u n q u e n e f a c c i a u s o p o s s a e s s e r e i n g r a d o d i f a r n e u n a v a l u t a z i o n e l e g a l e , i n v e c e c h e u n a s e m p l i c e q u e s t i o n e d i g i u d i z i o s o g g e t t i v o . A c a u s a d e l l o s h o c k , g l i S t a t i U n i t i d i B u s h d e c i s e r o d i i n t r a p r e n d e r e u n a “ G u e r r a a l T e r r o r e ” c o n l o s c o p o d i t u t e l a r e i p r o p r i i n t e r e s s i n a z i o n a l i n o n s o l a m e n t e c o n m i s u r e u n i l a t e r a l i , b e n s ì i m p e g n a n d o s i a n c h e i n a z i o n i p r e v e n t i v e n e i c o n f r o n t i d e i c o s i d d e t t i “ S t a t i C a n a g l i a ” ( S t a t i c h e s p o n s o r i z z a n o i l t e r r o r i s m o ) , c a m b i a n d o c o s ì l a c o n c e z i o n e d e l l a p r e v e n z i o n e e s e n t e n d o s i a u t o r i z z a t i n e l l ’ a v v i a r e a z i o n i m i l i t a r i a n c h e s e n z a u n ’ e f f e t t i v a o i m m i n e n t e m i n a c c i a a l l a l o r o s i c u r e z z a . C o n v i n t i c h e l ’ I r a q i n t r a t t e n e s s e r a p p o r t i c o n g l i a u t o r i d e g l i a t t e n t a t i e c o n v i n t i
d e l l a p r e s e n z a d i a r m i d i d i s t r u z i o n i d i m a s s a n e l t e r r i t o r i o , g l i S t a t i U n i t i c e r c a r o n o d e l l e g i u s t i f i c a z i o n i p e r u n p o s s i b i l e i n t e r v e n t o a r m a t o c o n t r o l ’ I r a q n e l l a p r e c e d e n t e r i s . 6 8 7 / 1 9 9 1 e n e l l a p i ù r e c e n t e r i s . 1 4 4 1 / 2 0 0 2 . L ’ o c c u p a z i o n e m i l i t a r e a n g l o -a m e r i c -a n -a i n t e r r i t o r i o i r -a c h e n o i n t r -a p r e s -a n e l 2 0 0 3 s e n z -a a l c u n d i r i t t o g i u r i d i c o e p r i v a d i a l c u n a e s p l i c i t a a u t o r i z z a z i o n e d a p a r t e d e l l ’ O N U v i o l ò , d i c o n s e g u e n z a , l ’ i n t e g r i t à t e r r i t o r i a l e d e l l ’ I r a q . C o n q u e s t o i n t e r v e n t o , l ’ u n i l a t e r a l i s m o r a g g i u n s e i l p u n t o d i m a s s i m a e s p a n s i o n e , m a a n c h e i l p u n t o d i m a g g i o r d e g e n e r a z i o n e . C i ò c h e n e s e g u ì f u u n a s c o n f i t t a p e r g l i S t a t i U n i t i : i n f a t t i , l a c o a l i z i o n e n o n e b b e l e c a p a c i t à e i m e z z i n e c e s s a r i p e r i m p o r r e u n ’ e f f e t t i v a o c c u p a z i o n e i n g r a d o d i r i s t a b i l i r e l e c o n d i z i o n i m i n i m e d i l e g g e p e r i c i v i l i . L e o p e r a z i o n i s v o l t e s e n z a l a s u p e r v i s i o n e d i u n ’ a u t o r i t à d e l l ’ O N U l a s c i a r o n o i l P a e s e c o n s e r i e c o n s e g u e n z e g i u r i d i c h e r i g u a r d a n t i l e n o r m e d e l l ’ o c c u p a z i o n e d i g u e r r a . U n o d e i p r o b l e m i p r i n c i p a l i c h i a r a m e n t e r i v e l a t o d a l l a S e c o n d a G u e r r a d e l G o l f o è c h e i l v o l e r e d e l l e a z i o n i p o l i t i c h e d a p a r t e d e l l ’ O N U è t u t t o r a g u i d a t o p r e v a l e n t e m e n t e d a i p r o g r a m m i i n t e r n i d e l l e m a g g i o r i p o t e n z e , i n v e c e c h e d a i p r o b l e m i d e l l ’ i n t e r a c o m u n i t à . G l i e v e n t i r e c e n t i h a n n o , p u r t r o p p o , e v i d e n z i a t o l a m a n c a n z a d i u n o r d i n e i n t e r n a z i o n a l e g i u r i d i c o f u n z i o n a n t e : i l s i s t e m a d e l l a s i c u r e z z a c o l l e t t i v a e l a b o r a t o d a l l a C a r t a O N U c o n t i n u a a m o s t r a r e l e s u e v u l n e r a b i l i t à , n o n p r e v e n e n d o i l r i c o r s o a l l a f o r z a . I l c o n t e s t o d e l l ’ O N U s i r i v e l a n e c e s s a r i o e d e s s e n z i a l e p e r l a s i c u r e z z a d e l l ’ e q u i l i b r i o
m o n d i a l e , m a d e v e t r o v a r e l e c a p a c i t à d i a d a t t a r s i a i c a m b i a m e n t i i n t e r n a z i o n a l i p e r p r e s e r v a r e u n ’ a f f i d a b i l i t à a n d a t a p e r s a n e l l ’ u l t i m o v e n t e n n i o . U n ’ a p p r o p r i a t a r i f o r m a r i s u l t a e s s e r e n e c e s s a r i a p e r r i d a r e a l l ’ O N U q u e l r u o l o d i g a r a n t e c h e g l i s p e t t a e p e r r i d e f i n i r e u n n u o v o s i s t e m a d i s i c u r e z z a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e . F i n o a d o g g i , l e v a r i e p r o p o s t e ( r i c o r d i a m o l a p r i n c i p a l e e l a b o r a t a n e l l ’ H i g h - L e v e l P a n e l o n T h r e a t s , C h a l l e n g e s a n d C h a n g e d e l 2 0 0 4 ) s i s o n o f o c a l i z z a t e s u l l ’ a l l a r g a m e n t o d e l C o n s i g l i o , p r e f i s s a n d o s i d i r a c c o g l i e r e i d i f f e r e n t i p u n t i d i v i s t a p e r r e a l i z z a r e u n a m i g l i o r e i n t e g r a z i o n e d e l l a s o c i e t à g l o b a l e . C i ò c h e v i e n e r i c h i e s t o è u n m a g g i o r c o i n v o l g i m e n t o n e l p r o c e s s o d e c i s i o n a l e d i c h i c o n t r i b u i s c e a l s u p p o r t o f i n a n z i a r i o , m i l i t a r e e d i p l o m a t i c o : n o n e s s e n d o i c i n q u e m e m b r i p e r m a n e n t i p i ù i n g r a d o d i r a p p r e s e n t a r e a l m e g l i o l e e s i g e n z e d i u n i n t e r o s i s t e m a d i S t a t i , s i p r o p o n e d i i n c l u d e r e a n c h e g l i S t a t i d i r e a l t à e m e r g e n t i ( B r a s i l e , I n d i a ) , t u t t o r a l a s c i a t i i n d i s p a r t e , e S t a t i g i à a f f e r m a t i ( G e r m a n i a , G i a p p o n e ) . C e r t o è c h e , a t t u a l m e n t e , g l i S t a t i n o n p o s s o n o s o p r a v v i v e r e s e n z a u n ’ a u t o r i t à s u p e r v i s i o n a l e e s t e r n a i n d i s p e n s a b i l e p e r l a c o n v i v e n z a c o l l e t t i v a : l ’ i n t e r n a z i o n a l i s m o d e l l ’ O N U r a p p r e s e n t a , i n f a t t i , u n p o r t o s i c u r o e n e c e s s a r i o p e r g l i S t a t i p i ù d e b o l i , p r i v a t i d i u n s i s t e m a d i a l l e a n z e c a p a c e d i p r o t e g g e r l i . M e n t r e l a s f i d a s t r a t e g i c a p o s t a d a l l a p r o l i f e r a z i o n e d e l l e a r m i d i d i s t r u z i o n e d i m a s s a e d a l t e r r o r i s m o p u ò e s s e r e c o m b a t t u t a e s u p e r a t a g r a z i e a d u n e f f i c i e n t e s i s t e m a g i u r i d i c o d i c o n t r o
-p r o l i f e r a z i o n e , n o n c ’ è n e s s u n a b a s e g i u r i d i c a c h e g i u s t i f i c h i l ’ u s o d e l l a f o r z a c o m e m e z z o s t r a t e g i c o c o n l o s c o p o d i m i g l i o r a r e u n a p a c e i m p e r f e t t a . A p a r t i r e d a l l a S e c o n d a G u e r r a d e l G o l f o , p o s s i a m o a f f e r m a r e c h e n e s s u n a o c c u p a z i o n e m i l i t a r e n o n d e s i d e r a t a p u ò e s s e r e i n g r a d o c o e s i s t e r e c o n i l p r o c e s s o d i d e m o c r a t i z z a z i o n e d i u n o S t a t o . L a l e z i o n e p r i n c i p a l e c h e i l s i s t e m a i n t e r n a z i o n a l e p u ò t r a r r e è c h e l e s o l u z i o n i “ v e l o c i ” n o n p o s s o n o f u n z i o n a r e : l e s a n z i o n i e c o n o m i c h e , l a f o r z a a r m a t a , g l i i n t e r v e n t i u m a n i t a r i n o n s a r a n n o m a i i n g r a d o d i r i s o l v e r e i p r o b l e m i , n a z i o n a l i e r e g i o n a l i , i n s i t i i n c e r t e r e a l t à d e l m o n d o f i n t a n t o c h é n o n v e n g a p r e s a i n p r i m i s u n a c h i a r a e s p e c i f i c a a n a l i s i d e l l e c o n s e g u e n z e s u l l u n g o t e r m i n e . A s e g u i t o d e l l ’ o c c u p a z i o n e a m e r i c a n a c o n c l u s a s i n e l 2 0 1 1 , l ’ I r a q è d i v e n t a t o “ u n s a n t u a r i o d e i t e r r o r i s t i ” , l a s c i a t o i n u n o s t a t o p r e c a r i o d i g u e r r a c i v i l e i n c u i s o n o r i e m e r s e a l c u n e t e n s i o n i i n t e r n e c h e s i p e n s a v a f o s s e r o s c o m p a r s e c o n l a f i n e d e l l a G u e r r a F r e d d a . L a c o n c r e t a p r e v e n z i o n e c o n t r o l a p r o l i f e r a z i o n e e i l t e r r o r i s m o r i c h i e d e u n a r e g o l a m e n t a z i o n e e p i ù n e l l o s p e c i f i c o u n ’ e f f e t t i v a a m m i n i s t r a z i o n e e g e s t i o n e . B i s o g n a a n c h e c o n s i d e r a r e , t u t t a v i a , c h e i l f u t u r o d e l d i r i t t o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e p u ò e s s e r e c o m p r e s o e p r e v i s t o s o l a m e n t e s e s i t i e n e i n c o n s i d e r a z i o n e i l r u o l o d e l l e p o t e n z e d o m i n a n t i , i n p a r t i c o l a r e d e g l i S t a t i U n i t i , g l i u n i c i i n g r a d o d i i m p o r r e u n o r d i n e m o n d i a l e s e c o n d o i p r o p r i p r o g e t t i . C i o n o n o s t a n t e , p o s s i a m o a f f e r m a r e c h e l a g u e r r a a l t e r r o r i s m o n o n p u ò l a s c i a r e s p a z i o a d u n s i s t e m a
i n t e r n a z i o n a l e c o n f o r m a t o s u l m o d e l l o i n t e r n o s t a t u n i t e n s e : g l i U S A n o n p o s s o n o c o n t i n u a r e c o n i l m u l t i l a t e r a l i s m o s e n z a i l s u p p o r t o d e g l i a l t r i S t a t i e d e l l ’ o p i n i o n e p u b b l i c a g l o b a l e . N e l l o s p e c i f i c o , g l i S t a t i n o n p o s s o n o d e c i d e r e u n i l a t e r a l m e n t e e a n c o r a m e n o r e g o l a r i z z a r e l e c o n t r o v e r s i e c o n i l r i c o r s o a l l a f o r z a a r m a t a : q u e s t a p r a t i c a m o s t r a c h i a r a m e n t e c h e g l i U S A , c o n s a p e v o l i d e i l i m i t i d e l l ’ O N U , d e l l e n o r m e r e d a t t e n e l l a C a r t a e d e i s u o i p o t e r i d i s a n z i o n e , h a n n o s e m p r e c e r c a t o e c o n t i n u a n o a c e r c a r e d i a g g i r a r l e . S e è n e c e s s a r i a l a s o p r a v v i v e n z a d i u n q u a d r o g i u r i d i c o i n t e r n a z i o n a l e , s o p r a t t u t t o c o n l o s c o p o d i l i m i t a r e e c o n t r o l l a r e l e a m b i z i o n i i n d i v i d u a l i d i o g n i s i n g o l o S t a t o , i l s i s t e m a n o n p u ò r i m a n e r e u g u a l e a q u e l l o a t t u a l e .
INTRODUCTION
The end of the Cold World and the consequent dissolution of the Communist block in 1991 dramatically altered the background of global security, which nowadays seems increasingly marked by internal conflicts rather than interstate ones. The surge of civil conflicts caused a major awareness of the issues regarding the pertinence and efficiency of the response provided by the international system of States. The tragic attacks of 09/11 meant the brand-new challenge of international terrorism had to be faced, together with the interrelated matter of the proliferation of WMDs and the perils caused by unconventional weapons. The variety of means that the United Nations has at its disposal was reshaped and improved simply in order to deal with these recent challenges and, concerning the civilian conflict in particular, the Security Council issued more and more complex and innovative resolutions regarding peace operations. These conflicts, which started to occur periodically from the early '90s, ensured that the UN mainly focused on the consolidation of peace through efforts whose aim was to reduce the risk of further conflict. In this way, the UN wanted to
increase countries’ capacity to manage conflict and to lay the foundations for sustainable peace and good governance. Therefore, the UN Charter tried to make a great attempt to assign the respective tasks and powers to the General Assembly and the Security Council in a well-defined and homogeneous manner. As a matter of fact, one of the main purposes of the authors of the Charter was to avoid the overlapping of powers, which had been a preeminent feature of the Covenant of the League of Nations. As Ronzitti and Cassese argue, the existing system before the end of the Second World War was totally revolutionized by the UN Charter. In fact, the achievement of the prohibition of the threat and the use of force and its subsequent transformation into customary norm brought to the fulfillment of a difficult process that started at the beginning of the XX century and completely changed compared to traditional international law.( 1 )
In an age following two global conflicts, the main aspiration has been to restrict individual countries’ right to decide to wage war: any unilateral recourse to armed force is considered illegal, with the exception of self-defense, which is the only recourse legally endorsed in the UN Charter.( 2 ) The authors of the Charter drafted a set of procedures to avoid armed conflict at any costs or to interrupt it in the event of it having already been started. The Security Council’s composition reflects the situation in the second postwar period with 15 members, 5 permanent States (China, the Russian Federation, France, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 10 States elected every two years by the General Assembly, in accordance with art. 24. It is the only institution able to maintain international peace. Although the Charter envisaged armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security
(1) N. RONZITTI, Introduzione al Diritto Internazionale, IV ed., Giappicchelli Editore, Torino, 2013, p. 413-414; A. CASSESE, Diritto Internazionale, a cura di P. GAETA, II ed., Il Mulino, Bologna, 2006, p. 151
(2) B. CONFORTI, “In tema di azioni del Consiglio di Sicurezza”, in Scritti di Diritto Internazionale, vol. I, Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2003, p. 261
Council and assisted by the Military Staff Committee, in accordance with articles 43 and 47, this project was never realized due to the Cold War.
The minimum service that the UN wants to guarantee is effective management of the exceptional breaking of international law, such as armed aggression and illicit bombing, as well as illegal administration in a UN sovereign Member State, in order to solve it and restore the status quo.
Increasingly nowadays, Western powers use humanitarian grounds to try to justify intervention in the affairs of other States. Those who propose a contemporary version of what was considered “imperialism” in the 19t h century, today discuss the responsibility of protecting human rights in those States which are victims of dictatorial or repressive regimes. This intervention could be carried out either through a collective effort authorized by the UN or through a unilateral operation undertaken by an individual State, if it is believed necessary.
Therefore, the principal value of the international system is the protection of the security of each member and of the system as a whole, considering appropriate measures that go beyond mere defense both for individuals and the community. Collective security must be ensured both against illicit violations directed at individuals, and also against the threats that have the whole system as target. According to Conforti, the UN is the principle existing international organization. Such organizations, which aim to correct economic imbalances and social conflicts of international matter, try to work on the causes of the political conflicts and the recourse to force. In this way, these international organizations, in particular the UN, try to make the interests of wide human communities prevail on the particularism of each single State.( 3 ) As Panebianco states, “for this reason, the UN
(3) B. CONFORTI, “Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite (ONU)”, in Scritti di Diritto Internazionale, vol. I, Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2003, p. 164
presents itself as an organization at the top or the core of a global system characterized by a plurality of smaller international organizations and by a variety of States that constitute the primary political unit, which own a large part of their traditional powers.”( 4 ) The several international organizations are connected together by the belief that the use of force must be discouraged throughout an action of international cooperation. If we focus on this principle, it is clear that the UN is at a position of supremacy compared to the others due to its universality and to its work of international cooperation.( 5 )
Over the centuries, the basic legal issue that has been repeatedly discussed is which possible ways of armed intervention should be permitted and which should be considered illegal by the international juridical system. From the introduction of the UN Charter as a source for international law, the individual States cannot resort to military force unilaterally, except when a justification provided by international law is demonstrated. “Contemporary changes in the prohibition of war are affected by deep transformations in the nature of State and the international community. A general process of restriction regarding State sovereignty is found both in ius pacis and in ius belli. So, the old notion of the power of war has been downgraded in its right and its content restricted: nowadays it is considered a faculty (facultas bellandi) and it is no longer considered ius ad bellum.”( 6 )
Indeed, the original project of the Charter was based on the exclusive ownership of the use of force by the Security Council, except for self-defense, and “it marked the beginning of a process aimed to decrease the relevance of the ius belli in doctrinal treatises.”( 7 ) Therefore, the authors of the
(4) M. PANEBIANCO, voce Nazioni Unite (ONU), in Enc. giur., vol. XXIII, Roma, 1990, p. 1 (5) B. CONFORTI, “Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite (ONU)”, in Scritti di Diritto Internazionale, vol. I, Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2003, p. 165
(6) M. PANEBIANCO, Diritto Internazionale Pubblico, III ed., Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2011, p. 339
(7) N. RONZITTI, Diritto Internazionale dei Conflitti Armati, IV edizione, Giappicchelli Editore, Torino, 2011, p. 28-34
Charter set the prohibition of the unilateral use of military force by the individual States,( 8 ) centralizing the power in the Security Council (chap. VII) and allowing States to react in self-defense until intervention by the Council.( 9 ) In this way, the lawful use of force was not only centralized, but also regulated according to a series of norms that the Council had to respect when it exercised its task of international “policing”. The original system of collective security that involved the disposal of military contingents by the UN had never been able to work. Therefore, the practice evolved into peace-keeping operations and the issuing of authorizations by the Council, in particular starting from the end of the Cold War and the First Gulf War in 1991. In this way, the Council has no power of direct intervention, but it can authorize the individual States to act, making each action licit which would otherwise break international law.
The use of force in the First Gulf War in 1991 and the Second Gulf War in 2003 flies in the face of the fact that recourse to force is prohibited by international law and, therefore, that any form of armed self-help constitutes an illegal action: we can no longer affirm that the use of force has stopped playing a decisive role on an international level. In an international system of States which have already been strengthened, like the current one, it is obvious that the “voids of power” cannot be tolerated if they can compromise the security of populations. Since the adoption of the UN Charter, the system of States has striven for the protection of all humankind, preventing a global imperial authority from doing so, owing to the fact that each potential transgressor succumbs to the jurisdiction of one or other State. When a State does not work, the others intervene with the duty of protection to the advantage of the entire system, at least in theory.
(8) Art. 2, par. 4, UN Charter (9) Art. 51, UN Charter
CHAPTER ONE
THE UN AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF
FORCE IN THE CHARTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1.1. Foreword: The law of the use of force before the UN Charter – 1.2. The Kellogg-Briand Pact: a first step towards the prohibition of the use of force – 1.3. Art. 2 and the prohibition of the use of force in the international system – 1.4. Articles 37, 39, 41 and 42: the role of the Security Council – 1.5. Art. 51 and the right of self-defense – 1.6. The preemptive self-defense
1.1. Foreword: T he law of the use of force bef ore the UN Charter
With the introduction of the UN Charter in 1945, intervention having recourse to armed force in the affairs of another State is strictly
forbidden by virtue of art. 2, par. 4. Indeed, the regulation of the use of force on an international level had its acme in the UN system. Here the authors outlined a system based on the precondition that no State would any longer have to have, or threaten to have, recourse to force. Moreover, the major global powers, which were reunited in the Security Council, would handle the integrity of international peace. “Whereas previously the distinction between lawful and unlawful use of force either could not be made or was blurred”, the winning powers in the Second World War wanted to codify “whether a specific instance of use of force was lawful” with the purpose of solving “all disputes threatening peace and security by peaceful means […] in conformity with the principle of justice and international law.”( 1 )
The use of force is the monopoly of the Security Council, which is entitled to intervene in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, when a threat or a breach of peace or an act of aggression are verified.( 2 ) In fact, the Security Council is not an organism entitled to react to international violations. Consequently, it is not a judicial institution that can verify that a violation is committed and that can establish the measures to adopt against the author of the breaking of the law. Instead, the Security Council owns the task of recommending or deciding which measures should be adopted when three particular situations occur: in the cases of threat to international peace, breach of international peace, and acts of aggression.( 3 ) Consequently, “whereas previously the distinction between lawful and unlawful use of force either could not be made or was blurred, it had now become possible to say – at least in theory – whether a specific instance of use of force was
(1) A. CASSESE, International Law, II ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 281; B. BROMS, The United Nations, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki, 1990, p. 50
(2) N. RONZITTI, Introduzione al Diritto Internazionale, IV ed., Giappicchelli Editore, Torino, 2013, p. 413
(3) A. CASSESE, Diritto Internazionale, a cura di P. GAETA, II ed., Il Mulino, Bologna, 2006, p. 380
lawful.”( 4 ) Moreover “whereas previously (until the League of Nations), force could be used without any previous assessment by a third party, now an international body, the Security Council, could decide to enforce peace after having determined the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression.”( 5 ) Thus, the Charter sets the goal of abolishing the right to go to war and, more generally, recourse to force as one of the features of State sovereignty. Nevertheless, regardless of the law, international ethics tackles the moral and practical issues regarding armed intervention. Public opinion often wonders whether State’s intervention is necessary enough to justify breaking the law. Ethics judges armed intervention illegal firstly when it is not undertaken for a just cause; secondly, when it is undertaken with means that involve disproportionate damage and, finally, when the achievement of a fair result is not expected. In the last few years, several attempts have been made to adapt the concept of the use of force to the justification of a just cause, especially regarding the concept of “war of national liberation” related to the practice of the right to self-defense. The issue that the principal juridical debates have focused on is whether a State should be allowed to actively intervene in a war being waged by another State with the aim of overturning the imposition of colonialism. The supposed authorization for the recourse to force by one State against another in a war for national liberation is not based on legal norms, but only on claims of justice. A State that approves such a cause believes it is authorized by international law to wage a war on the basis that a population fighting for its independence from foreign domination is allowed to consider itself a beneficiary of just cause. The problem is that the moral reasons that induce States to identify a war as “just” often coincide with the political and ideological beliefs of the State which is invoking just cause. Therefore, on behalf
(4) A. CASSESE, International Law, II ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 324 (5) v. supra
of justice, the existing legal prohibition of the use of interstate force is conditioned by political motives, which are not always the most charitable ones. The law of the use of force has dramatically changed over history and its juridical discipline goes back to ancient times. Before the entry into force of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the following UN Charter, States took advantage of the freedom of recourse to armed force: war was a means allowed by international law. The theory and the practice of the use of force during the 19t h and 20t h centuries referred to the bellum justum. The origins of the possible regulation of the recourse to force go back to the just war doctrines of the days of Roman law, found in the jus fetiale. In fact, Rome was the first “State” that established strict rules aiming to control the relations with third-parties. There was a set of regulations concerning war and peace with a religious connotation that was run by particular priests (the fetiales) who implemented a law half secular and half religious.( 6 ) The doctrine of just war legitimated the recourse to violence in international law as a self-defense process only if certain criteria concerning the war authorities which allowed war, its purposes and its intentions were satisfied. War was considered “a just war” only when certain preconditions existed, such as punishment for a tort suffered, repelling an enemy invasion or the recovery of assets. In particular, the moral problem regarding Christian ideology was whether they should consider the Evangelical message or should obey their own sovereign who asked them to fight and kill during the war. Saint Thomas rephrased the just war doctrine according to classical notions and, “recalling Augustine's authority […], he fixed the three conditions for the bellum justum: the auctoritas principis, by which war should be stated by the legal authority; the iusta causa, by which war should be moved by a just cause and the recta intentio, by which war should
pursue good against evil.”( 7 )
This doctrine was a cornerstone of the Medieval jus in bello doctrine (that is, the extended set of norms, both customary and pact ones, that enter into force among the warring States once war has started. Jus in bello consists of norms that tend to soften the brutalities of war among States, to protect civilians and States that are not involved in the conflict and to impose the punishments concerning war crimes.)( 8 ), where an independent institution, namely the ecclesiastical authority in Rome, supervised war justice. After the Protestant Reformation had a disintegrating impact on the Church's unity and authority, the bellum justum doctrine lost its centrality and became subjective. With the erosion of papal and imperial power and the emergence of national modern States, identifying a warring State as “just” became particularly difficult, because everybody claimed just cause and a higher authority which was able to declare justness did not exist. There was a gradual acceptance of war as “just for both sides” (bellum justum ex utraque parte), legitimating the recourse to force by any State. Each warring State became its own personal judge regarding the justum aspect of its own war. Until war was legitimated by the bellum justum doctrine, international law dealt with self-defense as counter-war in response to an act of aggression. The situation changed when war was banned in primis in the Kellogg-Briand Pact( 9 )
and later by the UN Charter: the notion of self-defense became an exception that restricted the use of force in a world united in the name of international peace and security. If, over the 19t h century, the recourse to war took inspiration from the “non-discrimination” conception, and was always considered legal, in the 20t h century the recourse became increasingly more illegal with the
(7) A. CALORE, “Guerra giusta” tra presente e passato, consulting at
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/tradizione2/Calore-Guerra-giusta.htm#_ftn34, visited on 02/05/2016 (8) B. CONFORTI, Diritto Internazionale, X ed., Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2014, p. 419 (9) The Kellogg-Briand Pact, Documents, consulting at
return of the discriminatory conception based on the bellum justum doctrine, which rewarded the warring State “which had a «just cause» on its side.”( 1 0 )
1.2. The Kellogg- Briand P act: a f irst step towards the prohibition of the use of force
1928 can be regarded as the turning point in the history of use of interstate force's regulation: in fact, the General Treaty for
Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, known also as Kellogg-Briand Pact, was signed. As Curti Gialdino affirms, “this treaty […] announces the condemnation of the recourse to war as solution in international controversies by the contracting parties and, moreover, the abolition of the recourse to force as means of national politics in their mutual relations.”( 1 1 ) The Kellogg-Briand Pact, which entered into force on 25 July 1929 among 46 States and to which others adhere later, arose from the French system of postwar alliances, which was negotiated with the aim of maintaining peace in Europe. France saw its security and, implicitly the security of entire Europe, deeply threatened by its ex enemy, Germany. Consequently, it tried to gain the support from other powers if Germany had the chance to attack. After having established alliances with neighboring States, France, owing to its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aristide Briand, proposed to the United States to join them in a treaty that ratified the prohibition of the use of force as instrument of national politics between the two powers on 6
(10) C. FOCARELLI, Diritto Internazionale, vol. I, II ed., CEDAM, Padova, 2012, p. 713
April 1927. The proposal became official in June. The American response came in December, 1927, by the Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg who suggested achieving the adhesion of all the major world powers in a declaration of war surrender as instrument of national policy.
Although the right of self-defense was not explicitly recognized in the Pact, however it was discussed during the previous negotiations. One of the terms imposed by France proclaimed that the surrender of use of force would not have deprived the signers of the right of self-defense. In the Kellogg's answer in June 1928, he declared that there was nothing that would restrict or modify the right of self-defense in any way. He went on saying:
“[t]hat right is inherent in every sovereign State and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. If it has a good case, the world will applaud and not condemn its action.”( 1 2 )
The Pact was signed on 28 August 1928 by 15 States. The Pact consisted only of three articles, one of them of technical nature. In art. I, the contractors solemnly declared that:
“[...] they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”( 1 3 )
(12) The Kellogg-Briand Pact, Documents, consulting at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/kbmenu.asp, visited on 21/04/2016 (13) Art. 1, The Kellogg-Briand Pact, consulting at
Art. II concerned the regulation of controversies and it established that: “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be”,( 1 4 ) which might have arisen among the contracting States, should be achieved only through peaceful means. Lastly, art. III concerned the procedure for other signers and the final ratification. The Pact did not deal with the forcible measures short of war, which remained legal, and self-defense.
Although war was generally banned by the Pact, it was legal in some circumstances:
• during the war for self-defense: no reservation was put in the text of the Pact and the parameters of natural law were not defined. “Concerning this issue, the annotation made by the American government on 23 June 1928 was particularly clear. Not only did it exclude the abolition of recourse to self-defense war, but also it underlines that the individual State is the only competent in deciding when the circumstances require such recourse.”( 1 5 ) Besides, no competent body able to determine whether a State was acting under the right of self-defense or breaking the Pact was created;
• during the war as instrument of international politics. Since art. I of the Pact prohibited war only as a means of national politics, it remained legal as instrument of international politics. The expression “national politics” gave life to subjective interpretations according to which other wars were allowed, too, not only in national terms, but also in pursuing religious or ideological purposes;
• during the war outside the range of mutual relations among the contractors: the abolition of use of force was circumscribed to relations among contracting States inter se.
(14) v. supra
In any case, the jus ad bellum outlined in the Kellogg-Briand Pact was subject of several debates because it lacked in four points:
• the issue of self-defense was not clearly specified in the text; • an agreement regarding the limits of war legitimacy as
instrument of international politics was not achieved;
• the prohibition of recourse to war did not concern the whole global community;
• forcible measures short of war were not taken into consideration.
The idea at the basis of the Pact was to overcome the simple procedural restrictions concerning war and it created, in this way, a general explicit prohibition against war. “So, the relevance of the Pact could be summarized as the definitive end of the laissez-faire doctrine, which had its apex in the early 19t h century.”( 1 6 )
1.3. Art. 2 and the prohibition of the use of f orce in the international system
With the institution of the League of Nations in 1919, the prohibition of the recourse to the use of force was definitively approved and in particular, the principle of respect and protection of territorial integrity and political independence of the Member States from any external aggression made by another member:
(16) S. NEFF, War and the Law of Nations: A General History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 294
“[t]he Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”( 1 7 )
The most serious problem that had to be solved in the period of the League of Nations was the limitation of the right of self-defense and, at the same time, allowing States to preserve the most essential aspects of the existence in a society that lacked an appropriate system of political and community protection.( 1 8 ) Therefore, “[...] one of the pillars of this community construction, which was composed of processes for the prevention of international conflicts, based itself on the assumption of some obligations concerning the non-resort to war (preamble), specified in the Covenant.”( 1 9 )
According to the article, the Covenant did not forbid or restrict the recourse to reprisal, to intervention and to peaceful block.
One of the principal aims of the UN Charter was to fill the lacks of the Covenant of the League of Nations, lingering mostly on the prohibition of the use of force. Following the decision made in 1944 by China, the ex-Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, the delegates of 50 States took part in the Conference of the United Nations on the International Organization in San Francisco in 1945. The Charter of the United States was signed on 26 June 1945, and entered in force on 24 October 1945 with the ratification of China,
(17) Art. 10, Covenant of the League of Nations, consulting at
https://cil.nus.edu.sg/rp/il/pdf/1919%20Covenant%20of%20the%20League%20of%20Nations-pdf.pdf, visited on 21/04/2016
(18) I. BROWNLIE, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1963, p. 217-18
France, Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Charter is the constitutive instrument of the organization, it sanctions the rights and duties of Member States and it designates the main institutions, while supervising its operation. The Charter is considered the codification of the fundamental principles concerning international relations since it currently binds 193 Member States. “The original system expected by the UN Charter in its chapter VII provides for a complete and systematic variety of measures aimed at the solution of armed conflicts among Member States by means of verification and execution of the right by the Security Council or group of States or individual States under the Council's control.”( 2 0 )
Among the many aims pursued by the Charter, the prohibition of threat or use of unilateral armed force by Member States (art. 2, par.4) has particular relevance. Self-defense is not included in the prohibition (art. 51) and only the Security Council is allowed to adopt peaceful coercive measures (art. 41) and military ones (art. 42) in case of threat to international peace and security.
The cornerstone which the current jus ad bellum is based on (that is, the right of waging war)( 2 1 ) is the art. 2, par. 4 of the Charter, which proclaims:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”( 2 2 )
Consequently, as fundamental principle of the organization and general principle of international law, the art. 2, par. 4 expressly demands that
(20) M. PANEBIANCO, voce Legittima Difesa II) DIR. INTERN., in Enc. giur., vol. XXi, Roma, 1990, p. 1 ss.
(21) B. CONFORTI, Diritto Internazionale, X ed., Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2014, p. 419 (22) Art. 2, par. 4, UN Charter
States shall abstain from the use of force as solution to international controversies. According to the current prevailing opinion among the majority of States, also confirmed by the International Court of Justice in the case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua of 1986,( 2 3 )
the prohibition to recourse to force “[...] is often qualified as a fundamental or essential principle of general international law. Moreover, it is specified as the most important example of norm of jus cogens. The jus cogens norms have higher rank than simple customary ones. The category of imperative norms emerged in a relatively recent period with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in 1969. According to the Convention, the jus cogens norms are those rules of general international law that are recognized and accepted as peremptory by the States.( 2 4 ) The Vienna Convention established the concept of jus cogens in art. 53, stating that:
“a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”( 2 5 )
“The Vienna Convention, open for signing on 23 May 1969, recognized and accepted such norms as legal rules that cannot be ignored through agreements among States by the international community in its whole.”( 2 6 ) The imperative norms are customary norms supported by an
(23) ICJ, Militarv and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), merits, judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, par. 202
(24) N. RONZITTI, Introduzione al Diritto Internazionale, IV ed., Giappichelli Editore, Torino, 2013, p. 165
(25) Art. 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consulting at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf, visited on 06/10/2016
(26) V. STARACE, voce Uso della forza nell'ordinamento internazionale II), in Enc. giur., vol. XXXVII, Roma, 1994, p. 2
highly qualified opinio juris, that is, they are not subjected to variation by agreement.( 2 7 ) Finally, the prohibition to recourse to force covers an erga omnes obligation. The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to point out the definition of erga omnes obligations in an obiter dictum concerning the judgment in the Barcelona Traction case (1970).( 2 8 ) It clearly distinguished between norms that create a set of bilateral relationships and norms that originate erga omnes obligations. “A substantial distinction must be made especially between the obligations of States towards the international community as its whole and the obligations that arise towards another framework of diplomatic protection. Due to their characters, the first ones concern all States. Seen the importance of the rights at stake, all States can be considered owners of a juridical interest so that those rights are protected; the specified obligations are erga omnes obligations.( 2 9 ) At present single States that act uti universi are generally recognized to act or react in order to protect erga omnes obligations, putting in place some “independent” judgment concerning both the subject of the obligations and the range and the procedures of the permitted reactions.( 3 0 )
According to the general opinion following two world wars, “the definition wants to deny the Hobbesian point of view that considered the international relations intrinsically competitive and led by war.”( 3 1 ) Therefore, “the conceptual distinction between illegal use and legal use of force was codified. From then on, the legal use of force should have a nature exclusively punitive.”( 3 2 )
(27) N. RONZITTI, Introduzione al Diritto Internazionale, IV ed., Giappichelli Editore, Torino, 2013, p. 165
(28) ICJ, Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium vs. Spain), merits
judgment, 5 February 1970, I.C.J. Reports, 1970, 3, par. 33
(29) N. RONZITTI, Introduzione al Diritto Internazionale, IV ed., Giappichelli Editore, Torino, 2013, p. 182
(30) P. PICONE, Comunità Internazionale e Obblighi “erga omnes”, Jovene Editore, Napoli, 2006, p. 522
(31) S. NEFF, War and the Law of Nations: a General History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 317
The basic idea of the system of international collective security requested by the United Nations was to take away the recourse to unilateral force from the States and to centralize it under the Security Council, by the virtue of art. 24:
“[...] its Members confer on the Security Council 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.”( 3 3 )
Unlike the Covenant of the League of Nations, “the stress was set not on the event of war itself – which is mentioned in the preamble – but on the word force. The creators of the organization wanted to avoid those ways out allowed in the Covenant and in the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This was made possible thanks to the recourse to collective actions that were not able to be technically defined as war.”( 3 4 ) In fact, the prohibition of using force also includes all those indirect measures such as the provisions of armament to an insurrectionary force in another State, the military training, intelligence operations, etc... However, provisions of financial assistance to an insurrectionary force are not included in the use of force. One of the most important elements that must be underlined when we talk about the prohibition of use of force is the widely diffused consensus according to which resorting to force and breaking the prohibition does not mean war, but it is considered an action of illegal aggression made in peacetime.
Art. 2, par. 4 purposely avoids the word “war”: the use of force in international relations includes also the war in its whole. Not only does the prohibition go beyond the mere war, including also the forcible
p. 336
(33) Art. 24, UN Charter
measures short of war, but also it goes beyond the current recourse to force, forbidding simple threat of use of force, too. “In other circumstances when the Charter uses the word force, it is correlated to the explicit clarification of the armed force or, when the explication does not appear, the context clearly excludes that force could make reference to economic coercion (art. 44).”( 3 5 ) We must notice that the use of threat of using force is forbidden only in “international relations” among Member States: consequently, the article does not involve interstate conflicts among its competences. States see internal conflicts as a problem concerning their internal nature, unless they compromise international peace and security, becoming a threat in accordance to chap. VII of the UN Charter.( 3 6 ) Nevertheless, the prohibition of the use of interstate force is not limited only to UN Member States: in fact, art. 2(4) forbids the use of force against “every States”, whether a UN member or not.
Art. 2(4) must be read closely together with paragraph 3, that states:
“[a]ll Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”( 3 7 )
The right interpretation is that any use of interstate force by Member States is forbidden for any reason, unless the Charter explicitly allows it. In particular, the recourse to force by a non-Member State is explained in art. 2, par. 6:
“[t]he Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these
(35) v. supra, p . 4
(36) C. GRAY, International Law and the Use of Force, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, p. 59
