The most significant of these summits and meetings were the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the Yalta Conference. II, June 18, 1950. 13, 2018). Obviously, to discuss every attribute of the U.N. security regime and every feature of its institutional structure would require a treatise-length tome, which is not possible here. 64 Richard Langhorne, Reflections on the Significance of the Congress of Vienna, 12 Rev. As they formulate understandings of their vital interests, the Great Powers must communicate regularly, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums like the Security Council, to ensure that they are aware of their respective vital interests and to reach understandings about how to accommodate and coordinate these interests. at 6. 115Russell, supra note 109, at 673–75. But see Daniel Joyner, The Security Council as a Legal Hegemon, 43 Geo. 678 (Nov. 29, 1990); S.C. Res. In other words, to authorize enforcement measures, the Council must first determine that the situation that it is examining amounts to a “threat to the peace,” “breach of the peace,” or “act of aggression.” The enforcement measures available to the Council include non-forcible measures, such as economic sanctions, trade and travel embargoes, and the severance of diplomatic ties. Emory Law is a top-ranked school known for exceptional scholarship, superior teaching, and demonstrated success in preparing students to practice. 92 One of these issues is whether the Security Council is bound by international law and whether it is required to solve the crises brought before it in accordance with international law. His law firm is not the payee. Our faculty are renowned for their innovative and dynamic teaching, and they are widely published in leading law reviews, books, and textbooks. Q. Press 2007). Sebastian Schmidt, To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations Literature, 55. These states generally agreed on the principal sources of threats to order and stability in Europe and committed to consult and act in concert to confront these threats. On the other hand, the United Nations as an entity and the Member States of the Security Council obviously have international legal personality and are bound to operate within the bounds of international law. It was argued that these proposals would have restricted “the Council’s freedom of action,” 111 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Verbatim Minutes of the First Meeting of Commission III, Doc. In fact, the state is currently experiencing something of a comeback, 155 Clyde W. Barrow, The Return of the State: Globalization, State Theory, and the New Imperialism, 27 New Pol. . 120Benedetto Conforti & Carlo Focarelli, The Law and Practice of the United Nations 226 (4th ed. 1(1) states that the Purposes of the United Nations are: 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, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace[.]. 48Thomas Weiss et al., The United Nations and Changing World Politics 26–27 (Westview Press 2001) (Underlying collective security is a single assumption: “all states would join forces to prevent one of their number from using coercion to gain advantage. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. 453, 453 (1991). 2, Oct. 20, 1955, 126 U.N.T.S. 24(1). The theory, as the Great Powers argued in their joint statement, was that without the veto a “chain of events” might be unleashed that might ultimately lead to Great Power war, which was exactly what the United Nations was established to avoid. They are China, France, Russia, USA and United Kingdom. . 237, 238 (2002–2003) (noting that “[t]he amount of discretion is, however, is debated, with there being strong contentions that even determination of threats to the peace by the Security Council are subject to law”). They could be embedded within inter-state organizations, such as the League of Arab States, 38 The Arab Joint Defense Agreement is an example of a collective security arrangement that is embedded within an inter-state organization. . Having endured two World Wars, the founding fathers of the United Nations sought, above all else, to prevent World War III. My view on this matter, which I will be unable to explain at length here, is that the Security Council itself is not bound by international law because, I believe, the Security Council as an entity does not enjoy international legal personality that enables it to bear either rights or duties under international law nor does it have the capacity to make claims under international law. .” Charles Kupchan & Clifford Kupchan, Concerts, Collective Security, and the Future of Europe, 16 Int’l Sec. Finally, in Part IV, I argue that the institutional structure and powers of the Security Council and the privileges enjoyed by its Permanent Members reflect the belief of the United Nations’ founders that the surest guarantee of world order is the maintenance of a balance of power between the most powerful states in the international system. As discussed above, the principal feature of a collective security mechanism is that it provides its members with a guarantee of protection against aggression. . Therefore, Koskenniemi argues, “[a]n exercise whose very point was to limit Security Council discretion ended up in defining as aggression whatever the Council chooses to regard as such!”). The North Atlantic Treaty that established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an archetypical example of this guarantee to protect the members of a collective security mechanism against aggression. 54Id. 67 Richard Elrod, The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System, 28 World Pol. . They refused to hold Bashar Al-Assad’s regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons. There would be no legal restraints, constraints, or limits to their discretion. 2(6). 136 Writing in 1946, a member of the U.S. delegation to the San Francisco Conference noted that “[n]o great power can be the object of enforcement action, and it is likely that a great power would use its veto to prevent action from being taken against one of its satellites.” Grayson Kirk, The Enforcement of Security, 55 Yale L.J. 29 Robert Jervis, Security Regimes, 36 Int’l Org. Accordingly, the Security Council has boundless discretion in the exercise of its powers under Article 39 of the Charter to determine whether a situation constitutes a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Whether the Security Council is bound to respect jus cogens is another matter on which scholarly opinion is unsettled. Even if it is understood that, as a matter of policy, a collective security mechanism is created to counter or deter a specific enemy, as a matter of law, these security regimes offer a general, non-discriminatory guarantee of protection against all attacks regardless of their source, origin, or nature. 16, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/world/africa/apology-over-rwanda-genocide.html. . 140Adam Roberts & Dominik Zaum, Selective Security: War and the United Nations Security Council Since 1945 74–77 (Adelphi Paper 2008). 34Roy Bridge & Roger Bullen, The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914 28 (2013). Press 1959). 662 (Aug. 9, 1990); S.C. Res. Some scholars of international relations have argued that the security dilemma is the most important source of conflict between states. Even if a Permanent Member did not directly commit an act of aggression, the Security Council was prevented from addressing crises or conflicts that affected the interests of those states or that occurred within those states’ spheres of influence. I disagree with such criticism. Conversely, after vetoing the draft resolution on Jerusalem, Ambassador Haley condemned the Council for considering a resolution that would have censured the United States and announced that “[w]hat we witnessed today in the Security Council is an insult. Mark Jarrett, The Congress of Vienna and its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy after Napoleon 84–86 (2013). 147 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Corrigendum to Summary Report of Ninth Meeting of Committee III/1, U.N. Doc. Rather, the Charter merely instructs states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means” 93 U.N. Charter art. Rev. 1632. Another feature of collective security is that it is non-discriminatory. It was those four powers that were imagined as the Four Policemen. 86 George Schild, The Roosevelt Administration and the United Nations: Recreation or Rejection of the League Experiment?, 158 World Aff. 243. 65 Tim Chapman, The Congress of Vienna: Origins, Processes and Results 16 (1998). A list of all draft Security Council resolutions that were vetoed is available here: For an account of Security Council debates during the Rwandan and the failure to intervene to prevent the ongoing genocide, see generally. The reasons for inaction vary depending on the circumstances. 160Phillip Lipscy, Renegotiating the World Order: Institutional Change in International Relations 3 (2017); Oliver Stuenkel, Post-Western World: How Emerging Powers Are Remaking Global Order 195–205 (2016). See Stephen Schlesinger, Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations 33–53 (Westview Press 2003). Hist. The concert was not a twentieth-century style international organization. As the Norwegian representative observed, the Security Council was free to propose any solution to a conflict or intervene in any manner, even if that entailed undermining the interests, security, or welfare of a U.N. member state. Therefore, Koskenniemi argues, “[a]n exercise whose very point was to limit Security Council discretion ended up in defining as aggression whatever the Council chooses to regard as such!”). Obviously, all errors are mine alone. J. Int’l L. 35, 35 (1945). 4 As is well known, the Permanent Members of the Security Council are: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. My view on this matter, which I will be unable to explain at length here, is that the Security Council itself is not bound by international law because, I believe, the Security Council as an entity does not enjoy international legal personality that enables it to bear either rights or duties under international law nor does it have the capacity to make claims under international law. Non-state actors, such as corporations and NGOs, have amassed considerable power and influence; supra-state entities, such as the EU, are exercising broad authorities in political and economic policy; sub-state territorial units, such as mega-cities, states, and autonomous regions within sovereign states, are performing important roles in global governance; and even individuals and networks of individuals have become important players in world affairs. 130 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Verbatim Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of Commission III, U.N. Doc. 164 As Avery Goldstein explains, one of the challenges facing international peace and security is that the Great Powers, especially the United States and China, have not articulated and communicated a clear understanding of their respective vital interests, especially in areas such as the South and East China Seas.