Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutionalising Morality: The UN Security Council and the Fundamental Norms of the International Legal Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover International Organization in the Anarchical Society

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

Abstract

This chapter considers the relationship between international law and the role and practice of the UN Security Council. Proceeding from the assumption that all international organizations are constituted, constrained, and empowered by the fundamental moral principles of the international legal order, it explores the way in which the norms of jus cogens have shaped the Security Council’s institutional environment and practice. It suggests that as a manifestation of the moral principles of international law, jus cogens norms have forged and defined the SC beyond the legal framework set out in the UN Charter. At the same time, it shows that the content and relevance of jus cogens itself have been shaped through Security Council successes and failures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the foundational texts on the concept of jus cogens, see Alfred Verdross (1937, 1966).

  2. 2.

    For a detailed discussion of the concept and identification of institutions in English School theory, see Barry Buzan (2004, 2014).

  3. 3.

    See Knudsen (Chap. 2 in this volume) who identifies six institutions that are considered to be constitutive of international society: sovereignty, the balance of power, diplomacy, international law, great power management, and war.

  4. 4.

    See also Hedley Bull (1977, 135–36).

  5. 5.

    I share Clark’s (2005) concern that accounts that juxtapose the existence and application of international law with the existence of international society are logically problematic for various reasons, not at least because international law itself is typically purported as one of international society’s fundamental institutions. Yet, there seems to be no doubt that the existence of international society as an ontological entity is inextricably linked to the emergence of an international public legal order. In this sense, international law does hold a distinct place among all of international society’s institutions.

  6. 6.

    Max Huber, who provides the basic text on the sociology of international law, was among the first writers to show that the relationship between law and the sociopolitical environment in which it operates is closer in the international than in the domestic realm, for states are the subjects and creators of law.

  7. 7.

    As John Dulles (1950, 194) once remarked: ‘The Security Council is not a body that merely enforces agreed law. It is law unto itself’.

  8. 8.

    For a good overview of the UN Security Council’s legal framing and role in the international legal order, see Ian Hurd (2014).

  9. 9.

    Necessity refers to judgements about whether a situation requires the use of military force; proportionality relates to the level and extent of force required to achieve the restoration of peace.

  10. 10.

    It is important to note that while all peremptory norms are said to contain obligations erga omnes, not all erga omnes obligations derive from peremptory norms (e.g. De Wet 2013).

  11. 11.

    There is a broad agreement among international layers that the Council is bound by jus cogens norms, see, for example, Orakhelashvili (2005), Weiß (2008), Tomuschat (2015), and Costello and Foster (2016).

  12. 12.

    The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1986 confirms that international organizations are bound by jus cogens.

  13. 13.

    One possible objection against this view is Article 103, which stipulates that UN Charter obligations prevail over any other rule of international law. However, their international lawyers are clear that Article 103 cannot be read in a way that leaves the Security Council’s decisions to its political discretion (Tomuschat 2015).

  14. 14.

    Although, according to Article 34(1) of the Statute of the ICJ, only states may be parties in cases before the court, the ICJ can be asked to review the legality of Security Council resolutions in cases in which interstate justiciable disputes involve measures adopted by the Council.

  15. 15.

    UN doc. GA Resolution 60/1, 16 September 2005.

  16. 16.

    UN doc. GA Resolution 60/1, 16 September 2005.

  17. 17.

    The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic was established on 22 August 2011 by the Human Rights Council through Resolution S-17/1 adopted at its 17th special session with a mandate to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law since March 2011 in the Syrian Arab Republic.

  18. 18.

    For a comprehensive collection of essays assessing the role of human rights in the UN Security Council, see Jared Genser and Bruno Stagno Ugarte (2014).

References

  • Aksu, Esref. 2003. The United Nations, Intra-state Peacekeeping and Normative Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, José E. 2003. Hegemonic International Law Revisited. The American Journal of International Law 97 (4): 873–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Buzan. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, Alex J., and Paul D. Williams. 2011. The New Politics of Protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and The Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs 87 (4): 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, Andrea. 2008. Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens. European Journal of International Law 19 (3): 491–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt, Philip. 2002. The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, Hedley, and Adam Watson. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Ray, Giuliano Martiniello, and Claire Mercer. 2011. Humanitarian Imperialism. Review of African Political Economy 38 (129): 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Ian. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Jean. 2012. Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, Cathrun, and Michelle Foster. 2016. Non-refoulement as Custom and Jus Cogens? Putting the Prohibition to the Test. In Netherlands Yearbook of International Law: Jus Cogens Quo Vadis? ed. Maarten den Heijer and Harmen van der Witt, 273–327. The Hague: Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Criddle, Evan J., and Evan Fox-Decent. 2009. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens. Yale Journal of International Law 34 (2): 331–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, Anthony. 1990. It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Jus Cogens! Connecticut Journal of International Law 6 (1): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danilenko, Gennady. 1993. Law Making in the International Community. Dordrecht: Martinius Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wet, Erika. 2013. Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes. In The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, ed. Dina Shelton, 541–561. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dulles, John Foster. 1950. War or Peace. New York: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fabius, Laurent. 2013. A Call for Self-Restraint at the UN. New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-call-for-self-restraint-at-the-un.html?mcubz=1. Accessed 16 June 2017.

  • Genser, Jared, and Bruno Stagno Ugarte. 2014. The United Nations Security Council in the Age of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glennon, Michael J. 2003. Why the Security Council Failed. Foreign Affairs 82 (3): 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2017. http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/335. Accessed 16 June 2017.

  • Gowlland-Debbas, Vera. 1994. The Relationship Between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in Light of the Lockerbie Case. The American Journal of International Law 88 (4): 643–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heieck, John. 2013. Illegal Vetoes in the Security Council – How Russia and China Breached Their Duty Under Jus Cogens to Prevent War Crimes. Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2013/08/14/emerging-voices-illegal-vetoes-in-the-security-council-how-russia-and-china-breached-their-duty-under-jus-cogens-to-prevent-war-crimes-in-syria/. Accessed at 12 Jan 2017.

  • Higgins, Rosalyn. 2009. Themes and Theories: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Writings in International Law Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Max. 1928. Die Soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechtes. Berlin: Rothschild.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, Ian. 2014. The UN Security Council and the International Rule of Law. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 7 (3): 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Alan. 1973. Law and Order in International Society. In The Bases of International Order; Essays in Honour of C.A.W. Manning, ed. Alan James, 60–84. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. International Society. British Journal of International Studies 4 (2): 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, Robert. 2015. Peremptory International Law – Jus Cogens: An Inventory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The Status of Law in World Society: Mediations on the Role and Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, David M. 2008. Security Council. In The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations, ed. Sam Daws and Thomas G. Weiss, 117–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martenczuk, Bernd. 1999. The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review: What Lessons from Lockerbie. European Journal of International Law 10 (3): 517–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardin, Terry. 1998. Legal Positivism as a Theory of International Society. In International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed. David Mapel and Terry Nardin, 17–35. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte, Georg. 2001. The Limits of the Security Council’s Powers and Its Function in the International Legal System: Some Reflections. In The Role of Law in International Politics, ed. Michael Byers, 315–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili, Alexander. 2005. The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The European Journal of International Law 16 (1): 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Anne. 2009. Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty. European Journal of International Law 20 (3): 513–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salcedo, Juan Antonio Carrillo. 2012. Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law. European Journal of International Law 8 (4): 583–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Dennis R. 2016. Peremptory Law, Global Order, and the Normative Boundaries of a Pluralistic World. International Theory 8 (2): 262–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwelb, Egon. 1967. Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission. The American Journal of International Law 61 (4): 946–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, Paul B. 2011. The Political Economy of Jus Cogens. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 44 (4): 1073–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szasz, Paul C. 2002. The Security Council Starts Legislating. The American Journal of International Law 96 (4): 901–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas, John. 1996. In Defence of Relative Normativity: Communitarian Values and the Nicaragua Case. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16 (1): 85–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The International Criminal Court. 1992. I.C.J Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, Christian. 2015. Security Council and Jus Cogens. In The Present and Future of Jus Cogens, ed. Enzo Cannizzaro, 7–98. Roma: Sapienza Universitat Edtricie.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. 2013. UN Must Reflect the World as It Is, Not as It Used to Be, Say Ministers from Germany, Liechtenstein. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46123#.WVZhYhOGOCQ. Accessed 19 June 2017.

  • Verdross, Alfred. 1937. Forbidden Treaties in International Law. The American Journal of International Law 34 (1): 571–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1966. Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law. The American Journal of International Law 60 (1): 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, Mark A. 1995. The Emptiness of the Concept of Jus Cogens as Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Michigan Journal of International Law 17 (1): 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß, Wolfgang. 2008. Security Council Powers and the Exigencies of Justice After War. In Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, ed. A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, 45–111. Leiden: Koninkklijke Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Nicholas. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wight, Martin. 1978. In Power Politics, ed. Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad. London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Dennis R. Schmidt

Authors
  1. Dennis R. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Tonny Brems Knudsen

  2. University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK

    Cornelia Navari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmidt, D.R. (2019). Institutionalising Morality: The UN Security Council and the Fundamental Norms of the International Legal Order. In: Brems Knudsen, T., Navari, C. (eds) International Organization in the Anarchical Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71622-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation