INTRODUCTION

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. It is currently made up

of 193 Member States. The mission and work of the United Nations are guided by the
purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter.

According to its Charter, the UN aims:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…to reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights,…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations
arising from treaties and other sources of international lawcan be maintained, and to
promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

In addition to maintaining peace and security, other important objectives include developing
friendly relations among countries based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples; achieving worldwide cooperation to solve international economic,
social, cultural, and humanitarian problems; respecting and promoting human rights; and
serving as a centre where countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these
various ends.

The UN formed a continuum with the League of Nations in general purpose, structure, and
functions; many of the UN’s principal organs and related agencies were adopted from similar
structures established earlier in the century. In some respects, however, the UN constituted a
very different organization, especially with regard to its objective of maintaining international
peace and security and its commitment to economic and social development.

Changes in the nature of international relations resulted in modifications in the

responsibilities of the UN and its decision-making apparatus. Cold War tensions between the
United States and the Soviet Union deeply affected the UN’s security functions during its
first 45 years. Extensive post-World War II decolonization in Africa, Asia, and the Middle
East increased the volume and nature of political, economic, and social issues that confronted
the organization. The Cold War’s end in 1991 brought renewed attention and appeals to the
UN. Amid an increasingly volatile geopolitical climate, there were new challenges to
established practices and functions, especially in the areas of conflict resolution and
humanitarian assistance. At the beginning of the 21st century, the UN and its programs
and affiliated agencies struggled to address humanitarian crises and civil wars, unprecedented
refugee flows, the devastation caused by the spread of AIDS, global financial disruptions,
international terrorism, and the disparities in wealth between the world’s richest and poorest
peoples.

The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General
Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and
committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the
Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve
problems together.

UN WORKING AS A PEACE KEEPING MACHIENERY

Peacekeeping by the United Nations is a role held by the Department of Peacekeeping

Operations as "a unique and dynamic instrument developed by the organization as a way to
help countries torn by conflict to create the conditions for lasting peace".[2] It is distinguished
from peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peace enforcement although the United Nations does
acknowledge that all activities are "mutually reinforcing" and that overlap between them is
frequent in practice.[3]

Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-
combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance
comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements,
electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development.
Accordingly, UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Berets or Blue Helmets because of
their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, police officers, and civilian personnel.

The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the power and
responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. For this
reason, the international community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize
peacekeeping operations through Chapter VII authorizations.[4]

Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself, with
troops serving under UN operational control. In these cases, peacekeepers remain members of
their respective armed forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN
does not have such a force. In cases where direct UN involvement is not considered
appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes regional organizations such as the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),[4] the Economic Community of West African States,
or coalitions of willing countries to undertake peacekeeping or peace-enforcement tasks.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix is the Head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. He took
over from the former Under-Secretary-General Mr. Hérve Ladsous on 1 April 2017. DPKO's
highest level doctrine document, entitled "United Nations Peacekeeping Operations:
Principles and Guidelines" was issued in 2008

ART 51 OF UN CHARTER- RIGHT TO SELF-DÉFENSE

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is sufficiently vague to allow states to assert their
right to self-defense without escalating a conflict. While either side in a conflict may see the
other as the aggressor acting beyond mere self-defense, Article 51 is vague enough that
neither side can prove the other has acted offensively. This vagueness can aid in, if not the
de-escalation of conflicts, preventing the rapid escalation of conflicts.

Text: The first sentence of Article 51 of Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter reads as
follows:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-
defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security[1].

This sentence is particularly vague on the following points:

1. It does not define what constitutes an attack. Is the seizure of ships or aircraft an
attack? Is the accidental or intentional violation of another country’s airspace an
attack? Is industrial espionage an attack? Is a spy satellite taking photographs of
military installations an attack?

2. It does not define what constitutes an armed attack. For example, is a cyber attack an
armed attack?

3. It does not define “collective self-defence.” Does the attacked nation need to request
assistance or can other nations preemptively intervene and claim their intervention
constitutes collective self-defense? Requiring the attacked nation to request assistance
might seem like the most responsible position, but this requires that the United
 Nations Security Council determine who the original aggressor and defender are. This
determination may not be possible or delivered in a timely manner.

4. The phrase “…until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security” begs several questions. What if the Security Council
does nothing? What if the Security Council does act, but these actions are not
sufficient to resolve the conflict? What constitutes a resolution and who decides
whether a resolution is satisfactory?

5. The phrase: “international peace and security” also begs several questions. What is
international peace and security? Was the world at peace during the Cold War? Is the
world not at peace when great powers are not in conflict but relatively small regional
or civil wars are ongoing? Is the world at peace when there is no open conflict
between states but despots murder and oppress their own people?

It is apparent from the questions in the preceding paragraphs that the first sentence of Article
51 is exceedingly vague. Opposed parties in a real-world conflict are certain to interpret
portions of the sentence in their own best interest, and these interpretations could be wildly
different yet equally valid[2]. But this begs the question, does this vagueness expand and
escalate conflicts or limit and de-escalate them?

On the surface it might appear that a more explicit Article 51 is to be desired. If it was clear
to states what actions constitute an armed attack and what circumstances allow for collective
self-defense, perhaps states would judiciously aim to abide by these rules lest they risk
United Nations’ intervention. There are several problems with this approach:

1. It would be impossible to explicitly account for all types of armed attacks, not simply
because of the variety that exists today, but because new types are continually being
invented. For example, the authors of the United Nations Charter could hardly have
conceived of cyber warfare in 1945.

2. States are ingenious and will always find new ways to circumvent—or even outright
ignore—any explicit rules that are laid out.

3. If a state realizes it must break one explicit rule to advance its agenda, why not break
more? If the United Nations Security Council does not intervene when one rule is
 broken, will it if two are broken? Three? Four? States will test how far they can push
the boundaries because it is advantageous to do so.

Is it possible, however, that having a vague Article 51 is advantageous? The world is not
rigid, so would it be beneficial to have a rigid Article 51? Given the reasons above, a rigid
Article 51 is certainly not practical. Let us take the Iranian drone shot down by the Israeli
Defense Force in February 2018 as an example of the advantages of a vague Article 51.

On February 10th, 2018 an Iranian drone entered Israeli airspace and was shot down by an
Israeli helicopter. The Israeli Defense Force followed up by attacking what they believed to
be the “drone launch components in Syrian territory[3].” Later, Israeli Air Force (IAF)
aircraft attacked 12 targets in Syria, including a mix of Syrian and Iranian military targets.
“During the attack, multiple anti-aircraft missiles were fired at IAF aircraft. The two pilots of
an F-16 jet ejected from the aircraft as per procedure, one of whom was seriously injured and
taken to the hospital for medical treatment[4].”

To summarize, Iranians in Syria used a drone to violate Israeli airspace. The Israelis
responded by destroying the drone and the drone’s launch structures in Syria. The Israelis
then violated Syrian airspace to attack Syrian and Iranian infrastructure. While doing so, one
of their F-16’s was shot down and one of its crew was wounded. All of this has occurred, yet
Iran and Israel have not declared war in response.

Incidents like this are so common that it is easy to overlook the miraculous fact that while
such incidents are not “peaceful,” the world does not face open war in response to each of
them. There are certainly a variety of reasons for this lack of open war that can be unique to
each situation such as level-headed leaders on either side, mutually assured destruction, war-
weary populations, etc. One compelling reason that many share, however, is that each side
can claim it was acting in self-defense while not being able to convince the international
community and United Nations Security Council that this is true. In this above example,
Israel could claim that it was attacked when the Iranian drone entered its airspace so its
response was in self-defense. Iran and Syria could claim that their drone was unarmed and
entered Israeli airspace accidentally. Israel then attacked them and they downed an Israeli
aircraft in self-defense. This familiar dance occurs in other comparable situations: opposing
sides take limited aggressive actions towards each other but generally stop short of open war.
Article 51 doesn’t eliminate conflict, but prevents it from escalating or at least escalating
quickly.
ARTICLE 2(4): USE OF FORCE.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter declares that:

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.

Since the adoption of this article the meaning of the word force has been disputed by political
leaders and delegates to the United Nations. Invariably these disputes have centered on
whether the prohibition against "the threat or use of force" in article 2(4) ap- plies only to the
threat or use of military force or extends to the threat or use of political and economic force
as well. Prompted in some instances by the economic and political coer- cion of the Arab oil
boycott, international scholars have begun to study the legal definition of the term force, as it
is used in article 2(4). After examining the history of international regulation of the use of
force, this note will compare the legal arguments enunciated by these scholars and reach its
own conclusions with respect to the definition of force. This note will also examine possible
approaches to regulating the economic and political use of force and determine if effective
principles can be developed. Even if such rules could be developed, this note questions
whether the use of economic and political force should be regulated. Finally, it examines the
pros- pects for United Nations development of rational prohibitions on the use of economic
and political coercion.

Article 2(4) does not use the term "war" but rather refers to "the threat or use of force."
Although clearly encompassed by the article, it is ambiguous whether the article only refers
to military force or economic, political, ideological or psychological force. The Preamble to
the Charter declares that the "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest..."
Article 51 preserves the "right of individual or collective self defence if an armed
attack occurs...". In 1970 the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Principles of
International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This resolution was adopted without vote
by consensus but is considered an authoritative statement on the interpretation of certain
provisions of the Charter. The Declaration reiterates article 2(4) and elaborates upon the
occasions when the threat or use of force is prohibited but it does not address the question of
whether force includes non-military force within the scope of the Charter. The Declaration
also states that: "Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be the construed as enlarging or
diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which
the use of force is lawful." Certain types of armed and non-armed intervention are prohibited
by the Declaration: "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or
indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.
Consequently, armed intervention and all against its political, economic and cultural
elements, are in violation of international law." The Declaration addresses the use of non-
military force in the context of other international obligations such as the obligation not to
intervene in the affairs of another state.

A number of developing nations have maintained that "force" includes non-military force but
the developed states have resisted this view while conceding that non-military force of
various kinds may be outlawed by other principles of international law.