Legal Powers of the United Nations Security Council in Iraq-Kuwait Situation - Coursework Example

Running Header: Legal powers of the United Nations Security Council in Iraq-Kuwait situation Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Legal powers of the United Nations Security Council in Iraq-Kuwait situation Introduction Iraq-Kuwait war was a major conflict between State of Kuwait and Republic of Iraq. In 1990, Kuwait was accused by Iraqi of stealing its oil through slant drilling. However, the main reasons behind this invasion was due to inability by Iraq to pay its debts whereby Kuwait had for 8 years funded Iraq during Iraq-Iran war. Reluctance by Kuwait to pardon the debts led to some strains between two Arab countries which finally led to war by Iraq. The decision by Saddam Hussein by then president was made few weeks before the invasion. This suggested that there were some feelings by the regime of severe time pressure. In August 2, 1990, the invasion by Iraq started, and within two days of severe combat, a lot of Armed forces from Kuwait had escaped to neighboring Bahrain and Saudi Arabia or even overrun by Iraq Republican forces. Kuwait state was abolished, and Saddam announced that Kuwait was 19th Iraq’s province. This led to United States led forces using the direct military intervention in Gulf war. After decisive victory by Iraq, Alaa Hussein Ali was installed as the prime minister of Kuwait while Ali Hassan Al-Majid was made the Kuwait’s Defacto governor by Saddam Hussein. Former Government officials and other royal family in Kuwait started an international campaign in persuading other countries to force Iraq out of Kuwait. This led to United Council Security Council passing 12 resolutions demanding Iraq’s forces to withdraw from Kuwait with no avail. The 7 month occupation by Iraq’s troops looted vast wealth of Kuwait with severe human rights violation. In 2005, a study and a report revealed that the occupation by Iraq in Kuwait had long-term adverse impacts and effects on Kuwait’s populace health. United Nations Security Council Legal powers The occupation and invasion by Iraq on Kuwait was condemned by World major powers. This included those who countries that were considered to be long time allies of Iraq for a long time like India and France. They called for immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq immediately. Other countries like China and USSR placed arms embargo or ban on Iraq. NATO Members were in particular critical on the occupation by Kuwait while United States had issued an ultimatum to Iraq for it to remove From Iraq its forces by 15th January in 1991 or face the war. On 3rd August 1990, UN security council passed Resolution 660 that condemned Invasion by Iraq on Kuwait which demanded Iraq to remove all its deployed forces unconditionally from Iraq. After failed negotiations between Iraq and major world powers, United Nations Security Council launched a military attack on Iraq1. According to Chapter VII, the Security Council authorizes the use of force in order to protect international peace and security. United Nations Charter’s Chapter VII sets out the powers of United Nation’s Security Council to maintain peace. It allows the Council to determine any breach of peace, threat to existence peace, or even act of regression and take any nonmilitary and military action in order to restore international security and peace. Breach of peace is the violation of law by any country on another like in the case of Iraq where it attacked Kuwait and violated its rights. Iraq threatened the peace in Kuwait and therefore this was determined by Security Council to be a threat that required to be checked properly before the situation became worse. Chapter VII as well gives Military Staff Committee duty for coordinating strategically the forces placed at UN Security Council disposal. This Committee is made of the chiefs of staff of the 5 permanent members. Several resolutions in the Chapter VII determine the existence of the peace threat, an act of aggression, or a breach of the peace in accordance with Article 39. The Chapter VII also makes a verdict clearly under Chapter VII. Nevertheless, not all resolutions are explicit; there is disagreement on the status of Chapter VII of small number of resolutions. Resolutions in Chapter VII are rarely isolated measures. In most cases, the initial response to a crisis is a resolution that demands the end of the crises. This is later followed by an actual resolution in Chapter VII detailing the required measures in order to secure conformity with the initial resolution2. The invasion by Iraq to Kuwait was a dispute that a threat to international peace and security. Iraq’s action to Kuwait was a breach of peace as well as a threat to existence peace in the region or Kuwait as a country. Security Council had no alternative but to use military forces to intervene and resolve disputes as it is under Chapter VII of the Charter. Iraq forcefully used its military powers to invade Kuwait with no genuine reasons. Several diplomacy negotiations failed to work and hence there were no other resolutions of resolving the problem other than the intervention by the United Nations Security Council to intervene through military intervention. United Nations Security Council has a role to play towards preventing any breach of peace and preventing threats to peace or any act of aggression. Therefore, it had no alternative other than to invade and attack Iraq in order to compel it to withdraw its forces out of Kuwait. According to article 39 of Chapter 7, Security Council shall establish the existence of any threat to peace, breach of regional peace, or even an aggression act and make suggestion, or even decide on what actions shall be taken into consideration according to Articles 41 and 42. This is to assist in restoring or maintaining international peace and security in all regions. Security Council found that there was breach of peace and threat of peace in Kuwait by Iraq hence there was need for restoring back peace in Kuwait. Therefore, Security Council decided to make recommendation and take measures through use of military force to compel Kuwait remove its forces from Iraq3. According to article 41, Security Council may decide on what measures to be employed without necessary employing military forces in giving effects to its decisions. This may call for the United Nations members to apply such measures. Such may include economic relations interruptions either partially or completely. It may also involve interruptions of telegraphic, postal, rail, sea and other communication means, as well as severance of diplomatic relations. Although Security Council did not apply those measures or put them into consideration very much, negotiations to persuade Iraq to withdraw their troops were not successful. Article 42 states that Security Council should take actions by air, land or sea forces in case the measures in Article 41 would be inadequate or even prove to be not enough. This is mainly to restore or maintain international peace as well as security. Such action may comprise blockade, demonstrations, and other sea, air, or land by United Nations members. According to Security Council, the Article 41 measures were inadequate hence there was need for Security Council to take actions possible in order to restore peace in Kuwait. All diplomatic measures failed to bear fruits and this eventually led to an action by Security Council in order to restore peace and force Iraq troops from Kuwait. This was supported by many members like China and USSR. Security Council noted there was continued defiance to Security Council by Iraq despite all the efforts by United Nations. The Security Council offered one final chance to implement Resolution 660 (1990). This demanded the withdrawal of forces by Iraq from Kuwait unconditionally. This is because it was responsibility of Council to make sure international security and peace is maintained. Failure by Iraq to implement Resolution 660 (1990), this would force the members to utilize all necessary means in upholding and implementing Resolution 660 (1990). This was an authorization that was legal for invading Iraq because it did not comply with the Security Council as well as withdrawing its troops within the given deadline. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678 was adopted on 29 November 1990. This was affirming several resolutions like 660, 661, 662, 664, and 665. Others were resolutions 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 which were all made in 1990. Security Council’s Resolution 678 was the Gulf war legal authorization that Security Council approved. The resolution 678 was approved by 12 votes to 2 where Cuba and Yemen was against it while China abstaining. This resolution gave Iraq one more final opportunity for it to withdraw its forces by January 15 1991. It demanded Iraq to comply with resolution 660 (1990) fully as well as all subsequent resolutions that were necessary. The resolution 678 also authorized United Nations members in cooperation with Kuwait government to use and utilize all necessary means possible to implement and uphold Resolution 660 of United Nations Security Council. This was a resolution that demanded withdrawal of forces by Iraq from located positions there was situated in Kuwait before they invaded. However, Iraq failed to comply with the resolution and this led to Security Council to invade Iraq unconditionally. The Security Council under resolution 678 (1990) recalled and reaffirmed its resolutions like 660 (1990) of August 2 1990, and 661 (1990) of August 6 1990 among others. However, in spite of all United Nations efforts, Iraq refused to comply and adhere to the responsibilities to put into practice resolution 660 (1990) and all other resolutions that were relevant. United Nations Charter has its roles and responsibilities of preserving and maintaining international security and peace. Therefore, it was its responsibility to ensure that all necessary measures and steps were put into consideration and hence intervene and act appropriately. Security Council was determined to secure full compliance with its decisions while acting under chapter VII of the Charter. Although Security Council did not agree with the United Nations, its resolution was legally binding as it was made under Chapter VII. This resolution states that and action can be taken in case there is threat of peace, breach of peace, and acts of Aggression. Adoption of Resolution 678 was through 12 votes to 2 that were against from Yemen and Cuba. There was one abstention from China Republic, the position by Cuba was contradictory because it had abstained or voted for in resolutions that was there before which related to Iraq. Cuba went on to be against the resolution 678 despite its previous resolutions position. Several members who voted yes for the resolution 678 were rewarded with economic encouragements4. Those members who did oppose the resolution were discouraged with the idea of economic oppression especially by United States if they voted against the resolution. After voting against, Yemen found its workers being expelled from Saudi Arabia. The aid programmes by United States, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank were ceased to be give to Yemen. There was no need for Yemen to be against the resolution as Iraq had already defied the required rules to remove its forces from Kuwait. Security Council found that there was breach of security and peace in Kuwait by Iraq. It went ahead to use all diplomatic efforts to rescue the situation but al that failed. There was no further option but to comply with Article 42 where the action in form of military was to be undertaken. Therefore there was no need for some members like Yemen to be against it. However, this vote by two members did not deter the Security Council from taking appropriate actions5. UN future enforcement action shall not be changed or affected by the situation that prevailed during Gulf War. The Security Council shall put in place necessary measures to ensure it prevents any breach of peace or any kind of threat to peace or security. Security Council has no alternative rather than acting using necessary force or military intervention to put to the end the threat to peace of any country by another under any circumstances. This resolution will be used in future without being affected by any condition. Security Council will also use all the necessary measures and diplomatic measures to try and persuade any involved country or state changes its behaviors. The Security Council will give a chance to any country that will breach the peace and security. Dame Rosalyn Higgins was an international Court of Justice member from July 12 1995 to February 5 2009. He was as well court’s president since February 2006 to February 2009. He has received several merit certificates like International Law for American Society. Another was at New York University where he received Harold Weil Medal. Rosalyn Higgins was appointed as an international law adviser in the Inquiry that was appointed by Gordon Brown. This inquiry was to establish whether UK went into war illegally. Rosalyn Higgins criticized the decision that was made in attacking and invading Iraq. As the president of international court, he said other ways would have been used rather than the military action that was taken. Rosalyn Higgins suggested that although Iraq had done against the expected, there was no need to take a very quick action using military force. He said that the use of force by United States and United Kingdom was unlawful. Although they were under the purported authorization of 678 resolutions, the decision was unlawful6. John Norton Moore is an author who has wrote several books including Crisis in the gulf: Enforcing the rule of the law of the 1992. In his opinion, he suggested that Iraq had gone too far in Attacking Iraq and therefore the action by Security Council was justified. He continued to say that the Security Council was acting on the articles 39, 41, and 42 as well as Resolution 678. Iraq as a country led to war generation due to the circumstances that it generated itself. John however, suggested that more appropriate measures needed to be taken to force Iraq to cease the attack on Kuwait. However, he concluded by saying that the gulf war was justified in order to rescue Kuwait from the situation it was forced to by Iraq. The Gulf war was meant to restore peace in Kuwait that was breached by Iraq forces. According to John, Iraq had breached the international peace hence there was need to restore and intervene on such a situation. The single alternative that existed was to use force to make Iraq to comply with the requirements. Stephens and Ratner were authors who wrote a book referred as international Human rights litigation in U. S. courts (1996). They contributed a lot to the opinions and views on the Gulf war. He said that the decision by Security Council to invade and attack Iraq was rather a harsh decision as it was in the United Nations Charter in chapter VII. Although chapter VII allowed for intervention by Security Council to ensure the situation does not lead to humanitarian crisis. The situation in Kuwait was demanding for rescue and intervention by Security Council with a more professional view in order to find out whether it could have worked effectively. According to Stephen and Ratner, it was collective responsibility to ensure the situation in Kuwait was restored back to normal after Iraq’s failure to comply with the rising humanitarian crisis situation with necessary rushing to a harsh decision. Although the attack was intended to restore and even maintain international peace and security in the region, it was not justifiable in the use of excessive force like Security Council did. Lobel and Ratner in their journal; bypassing the Security Council: Ambiguous authorizations to use force cease fires, and the Iraq inspection Regime (1999) were against the use of force by Security Council. Lobel and Ratner argued that the Council was very harsh in its decision towards attacking Iraq. They argued that Security Council did not utilize Article 41 extensive towards utilizing all possible means in ensuring Iraq complies with the Resolution. They opposed the war against Iraq and they even went ahead to litigate several cases opposing wars that were initiated by U.S. on Iraq. The argument by Lobel and Ratner were on the same side of argument like several other Authors who were against the war by Security Council on Iraq. Those authors have argued that Security Council did not have to use justify its attack on Iraq using Resolution 678. The Security Council was not supposed to take such a quick decision in attacking and implementing resolution 6787. Conclusion Security Council has a mandate to make sure that there is no violation of peace in the region. It is also its role to ensure that peace and security is restored in all areas. Therefore, it was the role of Security Council to ensure that peace and security was restored back to Kuwait and that Iraq did not interfere with other countries affairs and peace. Iraq had no clear and genuine reasons to attack Kuwait under any circumstances. Therefore its intention to attack Kuwait was not justified, therefore, under Chapter VII; the Security Council allows the use of military force for the sake of protecting international security and peace. Therefore, it was the responsibility of Security Council to ensure peace was restored and maintained in Kuwait by forcing Iraq to withdraw its forces form Kuwait and cease fire. References Burns, H. ‘Security Council Resolution 678 and Persian Gulf Decision-Making; Precarious Legitimacy’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 85, no. 3, 1991, pp. 516-535. Danesh, S. The United Nations and the Development of Collective security, Oxford and Portland, Hart Publishers, 2000. David, S. The Authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2001. Erika, de W. The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, Oxford and Portland: Hart, 2004. John, N. Crisis in the Gulf: Enforcing the Rule of Law, New York, London and Rome, Oceania publishers, 1992. Jules, L. and Michael, R. ‘Bypassing the Security Council: Ambiguous Authorizations to use force, ceasefires and the Iraq Inspection Regime’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 93, no. 1, 1999, pp. 124-154. Rosalyn, H. Problems and process: International Law and How we use it, Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Read More