Advertisement

Hezbollah and UNSC Resolutions 1559 and 1701

  • Filippo Dionigi
Part of the Middle East Today book series (MIET)

Abstract

As the previous chapter has shown, Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanese politics has been deliberately limited to parliamentary activity. But the withdrawals from Lebanon of Israel in 2000 and Syria in 2005 changed the political and military scenario regionally and domestically. Consequently, Hezbollah escalated its role in Lebanese politics, taking part in the Lebanese government for the first time in 2005. The withdrawal of Israel from almost1 the entire Lebanese territory in 2000 was celebrated as the final victory for the Resistance in Lebanon but also questioned the justification of the continuation of Hezbollah’s paramilitary apparatus.2 A serious source of troubles was Hezbollah’s disarmament, which the movement staunchly opposed even resorting to the use of force in May 2008 when the country came to the brink of internal conflict.

Keywords

Security Council International Norm State Sovereignty United Nations Security Council Resistance Movement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 38.
    H. Sayed and Z. Tzannatos, “The economic and human costs of the war,” in The war on Lebanon: a reader, ed. Nubar Hovsepian (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2008), pp. 316–42.Google Scholar
  2. 70.
    Ali Fayyād, “The Resolution 1701 and the Conflicting Strategies” (Beirut: the Consultative Centre for Studies and Documentation, 2008).Google Scholar
  3. 77.
    Inis L. Claude Jr., “Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations,” International Organization 20, no. 3 (1966): p. 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 80.
    See in this respect the analysis in Glynn T and Rogers A P V, and Clarke M H F, “Combatant and prisoner of war status,” in Armed conflict and the new law: aspects of the 1977 Geneva Protocols and the 1981 Weapons Convention, ed. Michael A. Meyer, Geoffrey Francis, Andrew Best, and British Institute of International and Comparative Law (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1987). For a thorough review of the debate on resistance and international humanitarian law,Google Scholar
  5. see Karma Nabulsi, Traditions of war: occupation, resistance, and the law (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  6. 81.
    Iain Johnstone, “Security Council deliberations: the power of the better argument,” European Journal of International Law 14, no. 3 (2003): pp. 437–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 92.
    Also the idea of normative persuasion here seems to fit the case. G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and hegemonic power,” International Organization 44, no. 3 (1990): p. 290.Google Scholar
  8. 93.
    Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International norm dynamics and political change,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): p. 906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Filippo Dionigi 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Dionigi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations