The UN Security Council | Global Politics | A Level Politics
Summary
TLDRThis lesson delves into the United Nations Security Council's structure and functions, focusing on its role in maintaining global peace and security. It explores the Council's authority to act against threats to peace, as outlined in the UN Charter, and its ability to authorize peacekeeping missions and military interventions. The discussion also touches on the legal binding nature of Security Council resolutions versus General Assembly resolutions. Criticisms of the Security Council include the dominance of permanent members, particularly their veto power, which can hinder action against their interests, as exemplified by recent conflicts involving Russia and the US.
Takeaways
- 🌐 The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a primary focus in the study of international peace and security, with its main function being to maintain peace worldwide.
- 📜 The UNSC has the authority to decide on actions to counter threats to peace, as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and can issue legally binding resolutions.
- 🛡️ Peacekeeping missions are a significant part of the UNSC's operations, established through resolutions and deployed in regions facing conflict or instability.
- ⚖️ The UNSC also has the power to sanction military interventions, although this is less common due to political sensitivities and controversies.
- 🏛️ The UNSC's role in regulating the use of force in international law is crucial, particularly in the context of jus ad bellum, which governs the initiation of armed conflict.
- 🔍 Historical instances of UNSC-sanctioned military interventions include the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991, demonstrating its capacity to enforce international law.
- 🤔 The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a contentious example of how UNSC resolutions can be interpreted and utilized by member states to justify military action.
- 🔑 The UNSC's permanent members (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) hold significant power, including veto rights, which can influence the council's decisions and actions.
- 🌍 Criticisms of the UNSC often center on the overrepresentation of certain nations and the underrepresentation of the global South, leading to questions about legitimacy and fairness.
- 🔍 The effectiveness and legitimacy of the UNSC are subject to ongoing analysis, with its actions and decisions being scrutinized for their impact on global peace and security.
Q & A
What is the primary function of the UN Security Council?
-The primary function of the UN Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. It does this by taking actions in response to threats to peace, as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
What types of actions can the UN Security Council take to maintain peace?
-The UN Security Council can take various actions, including the establishment of peacekeeping missions and the sanctioning of military intervention, to maintain peace. These actions are typically formalized through legally binding resolutions.
How are UN peacekeeping missions established?
-UN peacekeeping missions are established through resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. These missions are deployed in regions experiencing conflict or instability to help maintain peace and security.
What is the difference between resolutions by the General Assembly and those by the Security Council?
-Resolutions by the UN Security Council are legally binding under international law, whereas resolutions by the General Assembly are not legally binding and are more recommendatory in nature.
Can you provide examples of where UN peacekeeping missions are currently operating?
-UN peacekeeping missions are operating in various regions, including Afghanistan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others.
What is the concept of 'jus ad bellum' in relation to the UN Security Council?
-Jus ad bellum refers to the international law governing the use of force and the initiation of armed conflict. The UN Security Council plays a significant role in regulating jus ad bellum by authorizing military interventions when necessary.
How does the UN Security Council's authorization of military intervention work?
-The UN Security Council can authorize military intervention in response to threats to international peace and security. This is done through resolutions that are legally binding on member states.
What are some historical examples of the UN Security Council authorizing military intervention?
-Examples include the response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, and the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was justified by some as a continuation of previous resolutions.
What criticisms are often leveled against the UN Security Council's structure?
-Critics argue that the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China, leads to a lack of global representation and potential conflicts of interest, especially given their veto power.
How does the veto power of permanent members impact the UN Security Council's effectiveness?
-The veto power of permanent members can hinder the UN Security Council's ability to act when one of the permanent members is involved in a conflict or when actions align with their interests, leading to criticism of the Council's legitimacy and effectiveness.
What are some of the challenges the UN Security Council faces in terms of legitimacy and controversy?
-Challenges include the representation of global powers, the potential for permanent members to use their veto power to protect their interests, and the difficulty of acting in situations where a permanent member is directly involved in a conflict, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Outlines
🌍 Overview of the UN Security Council's Role and Functions
This paragraph introduces the focus on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and its pivotal role in maintaining global peace and security. The lesson aims to analyze the UNSC's operations, the effectiveness of reforms, and its authority as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The UNSC has the discretion to determine actions against threats to peace, typically through legally binding resolutions that can establish peacekeeping missions worldwide. The paragraph also touches on the UNSC's power to sanction military interventions, referencing historical instances such as the Korean War and the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. The discussion sets the stage for a deeper analysis of the UNSC's successes and the challenges it faces, including the issue of representation and the veto power of its permanent members.
🏛 Critique and Assessment of the UN Security Council
The second paragraph delves into the critique of the UNSC, particularly concerning its permanent membership. It points out the dominance of Western superpowers and the underrepresentation of the global South, which may lead to an imbalance in decision-making. The paragraph highlights the issue of veto power, which can hinder the UNSC's ability to act against the interests of its permanent members, as exemplified by Russia's veto in the context of the Ukraine invasion. The critique also extends to past actions of the United States and the United Kingdom, suggesting potential biases in UNSC resolutions. The paragraph concludes by setting the stage for an assessment of the UNSC's effectiveness and the need to reconcile these challenges in future discussions.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡UN Security Council
💡Peacekeeping missions
💡Chapter 7 of the UN Charter
💡Resolutions
💡Veto power
💡Jus ad bellum
💡Jus in bello
💡International humanitarian law
💡Permanent members
💡Legitimacy
Highlights
The UN Security Council is the focus of the first few lessons, emphasizing its structure and functions.
The Security Council's primary role is to maintain international peace and security.
The Council has the discretion to decide on actions against threats to peace as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Peacekeeping missions established by the Council are legally binding under international law.
The Council's resolutions can authorize military interventions, such as in Afghanistan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council's role includes the regulation of the jus ad bellum, the law on the use of force in international settings.
The Council has authorized military interventions, including in response to the invasions of South Korea and Kuwait.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was controversially justified by reinstating a 1991 UN Security Council resolution.
Criticism of the Security Council often focuses on the power dynamics of its five permanent members.
The veto power of permanent members can hinder the Council's ability to act against their interests.
The representation of the global South in the Security Council is limited, affecting its legitimacy.
The Council's effectiveness is often questioned, especially in conflicts involving permanent members.
The next lesson will assess the Security Council's actions and the success of its peacekeeping missions.
Transcripts
in this lesson we're going to take an
overview at the general structure as
well as the functions of the UN Security
Council now the orange Security Council
is what we're going to be spending the
majority of the first few lessons
focusing on for the most part we're
going to be taking a an analytical role
at the UN Security Council focusing on
the extent to which operations have been
successful the extent to which reform
may be operational within the security
Council
and then we'll move on to look at the
other organs of the United Nations such
as the general assembly economic and
social Council and the European European
the international court of justice
so like I said we're continuing in our
examination of the role and functions of
the U.N security Council something that
we did touch on in the last lesson when
we introduced the United Nations but
we're going to focus on this particular
organ of the United Nations in this
video
so
where there are events that can be
considered
generally speaking to be threats to
peace in those quotation marks according
to chapter 7 of the UN Charter the U.N
security Council will have discretion to
decide as to what kind of action ought
to be taken in said situations that is
essentially what the purpose of the U.S
Security Council is it's to maintain
peace and security around the world
and so this can be done through the
usage of U.N security Council
resolutions and a number of different
options can be uh levied in terms of
being able to try and counteract threats
to peace now theoretically there's no
limitation on the kind of options that
can be incorporated within the UN
Security Council but generally speaking
peacekeeping missions are where the
majority of the attention tends to
operate tends to lie
now peacekeeping missions can be
established by U.N security Council
resolutions and these resolutions are
legally binding instruments of
international law and this is something
that we're going to focus on when we
look at the disparity between
resolutions by the general assembly and
resolutions by the security Council
where there is a a a a degree of
limitation in terms of The Binding
nature of them compared to the security
Council resolution for example
um peacekeeping operations take place
all over the world and they will take
place in troubled situations and in
troubled regions so we have peacekeeping
missions in for example Afghanistan in
Mali in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and in others we have
um missions taking place essentially
wherever there is any kind of um
troubled situation or uh or or conflicts
taking place
now the sanctioning of military
intervention is also something that can
take place under the U.N security
Council and while it is not as common as
the authorization of peacekeeping
missions because of course there is a
certain degree of uh political
controversy in the sanctioning of
military intervention the UN Security
Council can authorize military
intervention in troubled regions so it
falls under the U.N security council's
role in the regulation of the usad
Bellum uh at the international law on
the use of force so it's generally
speaking when we think about
international law and international
Law's role in the regulation of armed
conflict we generally split and
delineate between two different stages
of the armed conflict if you will so you
have the usad Bellum which is the
beginning of an armed conflict the
international law and the use of force
being able to actually utilize Force
within international law settings
and then we have the use in Bellow which
is the regulation of armed conflict as
it is taking place the regulation of and
conduct of hostilities during uh armed
conflicts and this is uh Falls more
within the remitter of international
humanitarian law or Geneva law or Hagler
or the law of the the laws of war
essentially and so generally speaking
under the U.N security Council they have
the role of the regulation of the USA uh
the user Bellum in their ability to
regulate the international law on the
use of force now there have been
multiple instances in in the past
relatively recently in fact as well
where the U.N security Council has
passed resolutions that authorize
military intervention so for example in
1950 following the invasion of South
Korea by North Korea we also have the
invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's
Iraqi regime in 1991 military
intervention was sanctioned by the U.N
security Council there
and arguably according to the British
government the 2003 invasion of Iraq
could be justified by way of U.N
security Council resolutions but by not
necessarily a new Council resolution
that was issued but more so by
reinstating the U.N security Council
resolution which was passed in 1991.
essentially the argument here by
attorney general Lord Goldsmith at the
time was that because the U.N security
Council had issued a resolution in the
uh in military intervention in Kuwait as
a result of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi
regime that they could reactivate that
U.N security Council resolution given
the fact that they were similar um
circumstances in the same in the sense
that it was against Iraq and it was uh
under Saddam Hussein's regime that they
can reactivate this U.N security Council
resolution for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
now it is arguably the case that that is
a fringe interpretation of international
law but regardless that is one of the
Pres presentations that was um suggested
as a justification for the intervention
in Iraq in 2003
foreign
now beginning to think about the
assessment of the U.N security Council
beginning to think about the ways in
which the U.N security Council has its
problems and can be analyzed we have to
think about
um some of the major situations that
really caused the U.N security Council
to to either lack in any kind of
legitimacy or to be stuck in kind of a
controversial circumstances so the main
criticism that can't arguably beloved at
the U.N security Council relates to the
permanent membership now we know already
that there are five permanent members of
the U.N security Council we have the
United States the United Kingdom France
the Russian Federation and the China and
having permanent members of the U.N
security Council present the argument
that peace of security is essentially
regulated by mostly Western superpowers
like France the USA and the United
Kingdom and generally speaking if we
want to uh everyone to extend this even
further you could argue that having the
permanent members that we have and we
include the Russian Federation in China
as well we generally have the regulation
of piece of security done by superpowers
generally and where there is a lack of
representation of the global South in
this particular process or at least when
there is representation it is not by any
kind of permanent member it is
represented by those who are elected by
the general assembly
and so with permanent members also
having veto power there is the problem
um that the security Council has when it
comes to regulating action that aligns
with the interest of certain permanent
members so for example how can the U.N
security Council act in issues relating
to the Russian federation's invasion of
Ukraine when the Russian Federation is a
member of the U.N security Council and
therefore has the power to veto any kind
of action in that regard
so you have this problem whereby
essentially having permanent members and
having the specific permanent members in
question we have to trust in the fact
that they are not going to act in a way
that would be counter to any of the
actions that the U.N security Council
ought to partake in that you have to
trust that the UNC uh that the the
permanent members are going to act in a
way that presents a stability and peace
and security within the system
similarly just like as we've seen with
the invasion of Iraq from the
perspective of the United Kingdom and
the United States they also have the
power of veto on the UN Security Council
so we have this problem in that regard I
don't want to just make this out to be
an argument against the Russian
Federation uh for its invasion of
Ukraine of course this is just because
this is the most up-to-date and most
recent instance of something taking
place you could also make and Levy this
exact same argument to the United States
and the United Kingdom with the conflict
in Iraq and arguably also the conflict
in Afghanistan
so these are all different things that
we're going to have to reconcile with
the next lesson we're going to reconcile
with the actual an actual assessment of
the actions of the U.N security Council
the extent to which the U.S Security
Council has been successful in its
operations before moving on to looking
at the extent to which the U.N security
council's peacekeeping missions
specifically have been successful in
their operations
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Introduction to the United Nations | Global Politics
The Permanent 5 DOMINATE the UN Security Council – should they be stopped?
History of the United Nations - Behind the News
Role of United Nations in regulating conflict & maintaining peace (A-Level Geography)
🌍 GEOPOLÍTICA MUNDIAL - PARTE 1 | Quer Que Desenhe
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)