FN:s möjligheter att agera mot Rysslands invasionskrig i Ukraina - Något om generalförsamlingens befogenhet att agera med anledning av låsningen i säkerhetsrådet
(2022) LAGF03 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats tar sin utgångspunkt i säkerhetsrådets paralys till följd av vetorätten i relation till Rysslands invasion av Ukraina 2022. På flera håll i den internationella debatten hörs kritiska röster angående säkerhetsrådets, och därmed i praktiken hela FN:s, passivitet till följd av säkerhetsrådet oförmåga att agera i enlighet med sin befogenhet enligt framför allt FN-stadgans kapitel sju.
Rysslands agerande bryter mot den internationella rättens principer om bland annat statssuveränitet och non-intervention. Som yttersta ansvarig för internationell fred och säkerhet utgör FN en naturlig aktör att agera i denna situation eftersom den folkrättsstridiga invasionen aktualiserar FN:s ansvar för internationell fred och säkerhet.
... (More) - Denna uppsats tar sin utgångspunkt i säkerhetsrådets paralys till följd av vetorätten i relation till Rysslands invasion av Ukraina 2022. På flera håll i den internationella debatten hörs kritiska röster angående säkerhetsrådets, och därmed i praktiken hela FN:s, passivitet till följd av säkerhetsrådet oförmåga att agera i enlighet med sin befogenhet enligt framför allt FN-stadgans kapitel sju.
Rysslands agerande bryter mot den internationella rättens principer om bland annat statssuveränitet och non-intervention. Som yttersta ansvarig för internationell fred och säkerhet utgör FN en naturlig aktör att agera i denna situation eftersom den folkrättsstridiga invasionen aktualiserar FN:s ansvar för internationell fred och säkerhet.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka alternativa sätt för FN som samfund, vid sidan av säkerhetsrådet, att agera mot Rysslands invasion av Ukraina. I uppsatsen presenteras det huvudsakliga alternativet att generalförsamlingen vidtar åtgärder i säkerhetsrådets ställe. Uppsatsen undersöker framför allt förutsättningarna för generalförsamlingen att rekommendera militära åtgärder mot bakgrund av rätten till kollektivt självförsvar enligt i FN-stadgan. En central aspekt i relation till denna möjlighet är generalförsamlingens befogenhet att vidta åtgärder, exempelvis genom att anta rekommendationer till medlemsländerna, då säkerhetsrådet blockeras av veto.
Generalförsamlingen har hittills, i relation till kriget i Ukraina, antagit ett antal resolutioner vilka samtliga har gemensamt att de på olika sätt fördömer Rysslands invasion. Genom dessa fördömanden har generalförsamling tagit avstånd från Rysslands agerande såsom folkrättsstridigt. Emellertid ger dessa resolutioner inte upphov till direkta konsekvenser för den felande staten.
År 1950 antog generalförsamlingen The Uniting for Peace Resolution. Resolutionen innebär att generalförsamlingen, i säkerhetsrådets ställe, omedelbart ska behandla frågor och besluta om rekommenderade kollektiva åtgärder för medlemsstaterna vid en situation av oenighet bland säkerhetsrådets permanenta medlemmar. Mot bakgrund av bland annat denna resolution, FN-stadgans luckor i fråga om generalförsamlingens möjligheter att rekommendera militära åtgärder, rätten till kollektivt självförsvar samt tidigare agerande från respektive organ, antas i uppsatsen sådana rekommendationer sannolikt vara förenliga med gällande rätt. I uppsatsen belyses den osäkerhet som dock tveklöst råder kring generalförsamlingens specifika rätt att auktorisera våld på det sätt säkerhetsrådet kan göra detta enligt FN-stadgans kapitel sju. En uppenbar problematik som framträder i relation till den sannolikt obefintliga auktoriseringsrätten hos generalförsamlingen är att medlemsländer eventuellt riskerar att vidta illegala handlingar när de agerar i enlighet med generalförsamlingens, i sig legala, rekommendationer om militära åtgärder. (Less) - Abstract
- The background and the main question of this essay derives from the paraly-sis of the Security Council as a result of the use of the veto in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the international discussion, critical voices have been raised against the Security Council's and thus the entire UN's inefficacy following the Security Council’s inability to act in accordance with its authority under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter in the present situation.
The actions of Russia violate the principles of international law, including the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. The UN, being ultimately responsible for international peace and security is the given part to take action in the current situation. The... (More) - The background and the main question of this essay derives from the paraly-sis of the Security Council as a result of the use of the veto in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the international discussion, critical voices have been raised against the Security Council's and thus the entire UN's inefficacy following the Security Council’s inability to act in accordance with its authority under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter in the present situation.
The actions of Russia violate the principles of international law, including the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. The UN, being ultimately responsible for international peace and security is the given part to take action in the current situation. The purpose of this essay is to examine alternative ways for the UN as a community, alongside the Security Council, to act against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The main alternative presented is for the General Assembly to take measures in place of the Security Council. The essay primarily examines the conditions for the General Assembly to recommend military measures against the background of the right to collective self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter. One of the central questions that arises in relation to this possibility is whether the General Assembly's has authority to take measures, for example by adopting recommendations to the member states, in case of the Security Council being blocked by the veto of any of the permanent members of the Council.
The General Assembly has so far adopted a number of resolutions in relation to the war in Ukraine, all of which have in common that they condemn the invasion of Russia. Through these condemnations, the General Assembly has distanced itself from the actions of Russia and identified these actions as violations of international law. However, these resolutions do not result in actual consequences for, or sanctions against Russia.
In 1950, the General Assembly adopted The Uniting for Peace Resolution. The resolution entails that the General Assembly, in place of the Security Council, immediately shall deal with issues and decide on recommended collective measures for the member states in the event of disagreement among the permanent members of the Security Council. In light of this resolution, the unclarity of the UN Charter regarding the General Assembly's authority to recommend military measures, the institution of collective self-defense and previous actions taken by the respective bodies, the essay concludes that such recommendations on military measures are likely to be compatible with current law. However, the essay highlights the uncertainty that undoubtedly prevails around the specific right of the General Assembly to authorize violence like the Security Council has the right to do, according to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. An obvious problem that emerges in relation to the probably non-existent right of the General Assembly to authorize violence, is that member states might risk being guilty of illegal actions when they act in accordance with the General Assembly's, in themselves legal, recommendations on military measures. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9104273
- author
- Berner, Henrietta LU
- supervisor
-
- Mariya Senyk LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt, public international law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9104273
- date added to LUP
- 2023-02-03 15:42:38
- date last changed
- 2023-02-03 15:42:38
@misc{9104273,
abstract = {{The background and the main question of this essay derives from the paraly-sis of the Security Council as a result of the use of the veto in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the international discussion, critical voices have been raised against the Security Council's and thus the entire UN's inefficacy following the Security Council’s inability to act in accordance with its authority under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter in the present situation.
The actions of Russia violate the principles of international law, including the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. The UN, being ultimately responsible for international peace and security is the given part to take action in the current situation. The purpose of this essay is to examine alternative ways for the UN as a community, alongside the Security Council, to act against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The main alternative presented is for the General Assembly to take measures in place of the Security Council. The essay primarily examines the conditions for the General Assembly to recommend military measures against the background of the right to collective self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter. One of the central questions that arises in relation to this possibility is whether the General Assembly's has authority to take measures, for example by adopting recommendations to the member states, in case of the Security Council being blocked by the veto of any of the permanent members of the Council.
The General Assembly has so far adopted a number of resolutions in relation to the war in Ukraine, all of which have in common that they condemn the invasion of Russia. Through these condemnations, the General Assembly has distanced itself from the actions of Russia and identified these actions as violations of international law. However, these resolutions do not result in actual consequences for, or sanctions against Russia.
In 1950, the General Assembly adopted The Uniting for Peace Resolution. The resolution entails that the General Assembly, in place of the Security Council, immediately shall deal with issues and decide on recommended collective measures for the member states in the event of disagreement among the permanent members of the Security Council. In light of this resolution, the unclarity of the UN Charter regarding the General Assembly's authority to recommend military measures, the institution of collective self-defense and previous actions taken by the respective bodies, the essay concludes that such recommendations on military measures are likely to be compatible with current law. However, the essay highlights the uncertainty that undoubtedly prevails around the specific right of the General Assembly to authorize violence like the Security Council has the right to do, according to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. An obvious problem that emerges in relation to the probably non-existent right of the General Assembly to authorize violence, is that member states might risk being guilty of illegal actions when they act in accordance with the General Assembly's, in themselves legal, recommendations on military measures.}},
author = {{Berner, Henrietta}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{FN:s möjligheter att agera mot Rysslands invasionskrig i Ukraina - Något om generalförsamlingens befogenhet att agera med anledning av låsningen i säkerhetsrådet}},
year = {{2022}},
}