Advanced

Rätten till militär intervention genom regionala organisationer - Om förhållandet mellan artikel 4.h i AU Act och FN-stadgan

Björk, Sofia LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida artikel 4.h i AU Act är förenlig med FN-stadgan för att på så sätt kunna bestämma utrymmet för intervention genom regionala organisationer utan auktorisering av säkerhetsrådet. Analysen kommer att utföras genom att undersöka tolkningen av främst artikel 2.4 och 53 i FN-stadgan samt genom att undersöka av praxis och internationella opinioner.

Humanitär intervention har länge varit kontroversiellt i den internationella debatten. Till en början utgjorde suveränitetsprincipen det största hindret mot humanitär intervention, men detta kom efter principen om R2P istället att utgöras av det allmänna våldsförbudet. Artikel 4.h i AU Act stipulerar en rätt att intervenera för den Afrikanska... (More)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida artikel 4.h i AU Act är förenlig med FN-stadgan för att på så sätt kunna bestämma utrymmet för intervention genom regionala organisationer utan auktorisering av säkerhetsrådet. Analysen kommer att utföras genom att undersöka tolkningen av främst artikel 2.4 och 53 i FN-stadgan samt genom att undersöka av praxis och internationella opinioner.

Humanitär intervention har länge varit kontroversiellt i den internationella debatten. Till en början utgjorde suveränitetsprincipen det största hindret mot humanitär intervention, men detta kom efter principen om R2P istället att utgöras av det allmänna våldsförbudet. Artikel 4.h i AU Act stipulerar en rätt att intervenera för den Afrikanska Unionen, en så kallad stadfäst intervention, vilken även kan sägas utgöra ett samtycke till en intervention för medlemsstaterna i den Afrikanska Unionen. I internationell rätt har ICJ bedömt samtycke till intervention som lagligt. Däremot är FN-stadgan tyst på området och möjliggör endast för tvångsåtgärder av regionala organ genom auktorisering av säkerhetsrådet.

Med anledning av brist på avgörande på området samt det faktum att artikel 4.h i AU Act aldrig åberopats för att genomföra en intervention är det svårt att bedöma lagligheten av en sådan intervention i förhållande till FN-stadgan. Det faktum att en intervention enligt artikel 4.h kan sägas grunda sig på samtycke samt att en artikel 4.h intervention inte genomförs unilateralt verkar kunna innebära att en intervention enligt artikel 4.h i AU Act både skulle kunna vara legal och legitim i förhållande till FN-stadgan. Skulle dock en sådan intervention bedömas som legal finns det en risk att FN:s och säkerhetsrådets makt vad gäller att säkerställa internationell fred och säkerhet kommer att minska. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to examine whether article 4.h AU Act is consistent with the UN Charter and thus be able to determine the scope for intervention through regional organizations without authorization from the Security Council. The analysis will be accomplished by examining the interpretation of primarily article 2.4 and 53 of the UN Charter, by studying praxis as well as international opinions.

Humanitarian intervention has since long been controversial in the international debate. To a start, the primary obstacle for humanitarian intervention was consituted by the principle of sovereignty. However, after the principle of R2P the greatest obstacle for humanitarian intervention would turn out to be the prohibition of use of... (More)
The purpose of this essay is to examine whether article 4.h AU Act is consistent with the UN Charter and thus be able to determine the scope for intervention through regional organizations without authorization from the Security Council. The analysis will be accomplished by examining the interpretation of primarily article 2.4 and 53 of the UN Charter, by studying praxis as well as international opinions.

Humanitarian intervention has since long been controversial in the international debate. To a start, the primary obstacle for humanitarian intervention was consituted by the principle of sovereignty. However, after the principle of R2P the greatest obstacle for humanitarian intervention would turn out to be the prohibition of use of force. Article 4.h AU Act construes a right to intervene for the African Union, a so-called statutory intervention, which can also be said to constitute intervention by consent by the member states of the African Union. In international law, ICJ has judged intervention by consent as legal. However, the UN Charter is silent on the matter and only provides for enforcement action by regional organizations with the authorization of the Security Council.

Due to lack of legal decisions on the subject, as well as the fact that article 4.h AU Act has never been invoked for an intervention, it is hard to judge the legality of such an intervention in relation to the UN Charter. The fact that an intervention pursuant to article 4.h could be said to be based on consent and that an article 4.h intervention is not carried out unilaterally seems to entail that an intervention pursuant to article 4.h could both be legal and legitimate in relation to the UN Charter. However, should such an intervention be judged legal, there is a risk that the power of the UN and the Security Council, in terms of maintaining international peace and security, will decrease. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Björk, Sofia LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
humanitär intervention, folkrätt, Afrikanska Unionen
language
Swedish
id
8874292
date added to LUP
2016-07-03 21:33:37
date last changed
2016-07-03 21:33:37
@misc{8874292,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this essay is to examine whether article 4.h AU Act is consistent with the UN Charter and thus be able to determine the scope for intervention through regional organizations without authorization from the Security Council. The analysis will be accomplished by examining the interpretation of primarily article 2.4 and 53 of the UN Charter, by studying praxis as well as international opinions. 

Humanitarian intervention has since long been controversial in the international debate. To a start, the primary obstacle for humanitarian intervention was consituted by the principle of sovereignty. However, after the principle of R2P the greatest obstacle for humanitarian intervention would turn out to be the prohibition of use of force. Article 4.h AU Act construes a right to intervene for the African Union, a so-called statutory intervention, which can also be said to constitute intervention by consent by the member states of the African Union. In international law, ICJ has judged intervention by consent as legal. However, the UN Charter is silent on the matter and only provides for enforcement action by regional organizations with the authorization of the Security Council. 

Due to lack of legal decisions on the subject, as well as the fact that article 4.h AU Act has never been invoked for an intervention, it is hard to judge the legality of such an intervention in relation to the UN Charter. The fact that an intervention pursuant to article 4.h could be said to be based on consent and that an article 4.h intervention is not carried out unilaterally seems to entail that an intervention pursuant to article 4.h could both be legal and legitimate in relation to the UN Charter. However, should such an intervention be judged legal, there is a risk that the power of the UN and the Security Council, in terms of maintaining international peace and security, will decrease.},
  author       = {Björk, Sofia},
  keyword      = {humanitär intervention,folkrätt,Afrikanska Unionen},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rätten till militär intervention genom regionala organisationer - Om förhållandet mellan artikel 4.h i AU Act och FN-stadgan},
  year         = {2016},
}