Collective Security and UN Reform: Between the Necessary and the Possible

Article 1(1) of the UN Charter states the primary purpose of the international organization thus: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. Such an ambitious commitment to a new international order raised not only high hopes but also crucial questions regarding its implementation. Who is to determine whether there has been a breach of international peace and security ? What collective measures are to be taken in the event of such a breach, and by whom? These crucial questions were not overlooked by the nations as they negotiated the post-war order and, in the words of the Charter\u27s preamble, set about preparing the contours of a new institutional process by which to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. After forty million deaths caused by the just-ended conflict, states well understood the necessity for collective security and sought to invent a process-replete with parliamentary, executive and judicial institutions-which, if utilized properly, would ensure against the recurrence of such global catastrophes by timely decisions and effective means. [CONT

The Future Relationship Between A New Adminstration And The International Court Of Justice

If the democrats recapture the White House and win half a dozen more seats in the Senate, it will be time to rethink and redevelop the U.S. relationship with international law

The Democratic Entitlement

Elsewhere, writing in January, 1992, I indicated my belief that we are witnessing the emergence of a community expectation: that those who seek the validation of their empowerment must patently govern with the consent of the governed. Democracy, thus, is on the way to becoming a global entitlement, one that increasingly will be promoted and protected by collective international processes.

When, If Ever, May States Deploy Military Force Without Prior Security Council Authorization?

Were the Charter a static instrument bound exclusively to the textually expressed intent of its drafters, the profound incapacitation of the Security Council and the absence of a stand-by police force might have put paid to the Charter’s collective security system. Instead, the system has adapted, specifically by uncoupling Article 43 from Article 42 and by broadening the authority of states to act in self-defense under Article 51. These adaptions, brought about precedent-by-precedent, are worth noting

Individual Criminal Liability and Collective Civil Responsibility: Do They Reinforce or Contradict One Another?

Does the ICJ, in discharging its responsibility under Article IX to establish the “responsibility” of a state for genocide, risk trenching on the jurisdiction now assigned to the ICTY and ICC? And does it risk perpetuating a notion of “collective guilt”