Advertisement

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

  • Dennis R. Schmidt
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (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.

References

  1. Aksu, Esref. 2003. The United Nations, Intra-state Peacekeeping and Normative Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, José E. 2003. Hegemonic International Law Revisited. The American Journal of International Law 97 (4): 873–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, Buzan. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi, Andrea. 2008. Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens. European Journal of International Law 19 (3): 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobbitt, Philip. 2002. The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull, Hedley, and Adam Watson. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bush, Ray, Giuliano Martiniello, and Claire Mercer. 2011. Humanitarian Imperialism. Review of African Political Economy 38 (129): 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, Ian. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Jean. 2012. Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Danilenko, Gennady. 1993. Law Making in the International Community. Dordrecht: Martinius Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Dulles, John Foster. 1950. War or Peace. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. Genser, Jared, and Bruno Stagno Ugarte. 2014. The United Nations Security Council in the Age of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glennon, Michael J. 2003. Why the Security Council Failed. Foreign Affairs 82 (3): 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2017. http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/335. Accessed 16 June 2017.
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.
  25. Higgins, Rosalyn. 2009. Themes and Theories: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Writings in International Law Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Huber, Max. 1928. Die Soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechtes. Berlin: Rothschild.Google Scholar
  27. Hurd, Ian. 2014. The UN Security Council and the International Rule of Law. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 7 (3): 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. ———. 1978. International Society. British Journal of International Studies 4 (2): 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolb, Robert. 2015. Peremptory International Law – Jus Cogens: An Inventory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2014. The Status of Law in World Society: Mediations on the Role and Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters, Anne. 2009. Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty. European Journal of International Law 20 (3): 513–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, Dennis R. 2016. Peremptory Law, Global Order, and the Normative Boundaries of a Pluralistic World. International Theory 8 (2): 262–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stephan, Paul B. 2011. The Political Economy of Jus Cogens. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 44 (4): 1073–1104.Google Scholar
  44. Szasz, Paul C. 2002. The Security Council Starts Legislating. The American Journal of International Law 96 (4): 901–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tasioulas, John. 1996. In Defence of Relative Normativity: Communitarian Values and the Nicaragua Case. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16 (1): 85–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The International Criminal Court. 1992. I.C.J Reports.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. Verdross, Alfred. 1937. Forbidden Treaties in International Law. The American Journal of International Law 34 (1): 571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ———. 1966. Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law. The American Journal of International Law 60 (1): 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Wheeler, Nicholas. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wight, Martin. 1978. In Power Politics, ed. Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis R. Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations