Mainstream WeeklyAbstract
The Cold war saw not only the struggle between East and West but also within the United Nations Security Council. Here, the Soviet Union and United States of America had their actions frozen by their reciprocal veto power. Since the end of Cold War in 1990s, most international attention has been focused on the use of force outside the parameters of the United Nations Charter. While attempts have been made to justify actions in Kosovo and Iraq based on evolving customary norms of international law, little consensus has emerged regarding state practice which allows for an expansion of legal recourse to the use of force beyond self-defense or actions undertaken by the UN Security Council to ensure international peace and security. This since these exceptions are not based on customary law but are constituted by international treaties that override the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Keywords: United Nations, Security Council, Veto power, African Union, Self-Defence, use of force, morality, international law
__0__
Introduction
Article 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter of 1945 spells out that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations by the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes. Nonetheless, resort to armed forces is authorised under two circumstances. First is in case of self-defence, individual or collective, authorised by article 51 of the UN Charter. Second is in the context of collective security measures adopted by the UNSC (Article 42 of the UN Charter). Despite the adoption of a definition of aggression in 1974 by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council continued to use the more neutral terminology of