The Argument (Article 42) Of The Security Council

In case of a war, the Security Council may call upon the Members of the UN to completely or partially interrupt economic relations and sever diplomatic relations . It may do so by ‘air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security’ . The Members of UN may either use their own armed forces for military operations or merely provide assistance and facilities, including a rite of passage, to the Security Council for the effective execution of the resolution. These actions may take place by reaching a special agreement with the Security Council, or ‘on its call’ . As is often criticized, this Article (42) of the Security Council has been applied rather sparingly. This is mostly so because the gravity

In 1950, the authorization of military intervention in Korea lead to the division of the country into North and South where North was the ‘aggressor’ and constituted a breach of the peace . The second implementation of the Article (42) followed the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq resulting in the First Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) of 1990-1991 . The crackdown of Libyan armed forces against peaceful demonstrations (2011) escalated resulting in the Security Council calling on all member states to ‘take all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’ . Lastly, the violence in Mali (2012) lead by several insurgent groups was addressed by the Security Council upon the request of Transitional authorities of Mali regarding an international military force assisting the Malian Armed Forces in recovering the occupied territories in the north of Mali . Jus in Bello The principle of jus in bello was introduced to regulate war. One could not go to war without having a just reason for doing so. Therefore, the International Humanitarian Law, subdivided into two categories, entail the rules that apply in times of armed conflict. These rules outline a) The kind of weapons that can be used in a combat, and the legitimate targets of an armed attack ; b) The protection of certain categories of persons; wounded and sick

An instance of the application of the said provision of Protocol 1 may be seen I the conflict in Sierra Leone (March 1991-Jan 2002). Serious crimes, including the targeting of the civilians were committed during the armed conflict . Consequently, the ‘aggressors’ were brought to the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). When charged as guilty, the accused claimed that they were fighting against the aggressors with a view to reinstating the lawful government and restoring democracy in the country, and that their ultimate objective was therefore legitimate . The Appeals Court thus looked further into the matter in an attempt to figure out to what extent the, if at all, could the ‘noble intentions’ be called into question. In conclusion, it was decided that ‘it is manifestly incorrect to conclude that widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population cannot be characterized as crimes against humanity simply because the ultimate objective of the fighting force was legitimate and aimed at responding to the aggressors’ . Consequently, another relevant question was raised: could the noble cause serve as a mitigating factor for the purposes of punishment? In response, the Appeals Chamber argued that ‘any motive taken into consideration as a mitigating factor must be consistent with sentencing purposes, such as individual and general deterrence, affirmative prevention aimed at