Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Resolution 2006/01

Reviewing the Use of Force and the UN Charter
Draft Resolution submitted by The United States of America

Recognising the significant and fundamental changes in international and transnational geopolitical situations since the creation of the United Nations (UN) and the drafting of the UN Charter,

Affirming the need to re-define some aspects of the UN in international and transnational terms in order to face the new challenges faced by the organisation and the world in the 21st Century,

Recalling the original aims and objectives of the UN upon its creation and affirming that these aims are still fully respected and operative,

Deeply regretting that there have been numerous failures by the UN and its various components to thoroughly tackle and rectify situations and issues which have arisen in recent times, resulting in various disturbing outcomes,

Emphasising that the UN must rise to new situations and challenges or face fading in to insignificance in global terms,

Convinced that a primary area of interest that must be tackled is the UN’s position on the use of force by Member States and the relationship between the use of force and the UN Charter,

1. Proclaims the term ‘self-defence’ under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter be redefined to legitimise the use of force in the following situations, in addition to those that are already covered, and that this new definition of an ‘inherent right’ to ‘self-defence’ be considered to be entirely legitimate under the UN Charter,

a. The tackling of serious potential threats to either international peace and security or the security of any specific UN Member State (hereafter, ‘State’ or ‘States&#8217 :wink:

, in the foreseeable future, posed by any of the following,
i. States,
ii. Groups or organisations operating on the sovereign territory of a State, with or without the support, condoning or acknowledgement of that State,
iii. Governing or authoritative bodies in areas or territories that are not under the direct legitimate control of any State,
iv. Groups or organisations operating on the territory controlled by the sorts of bodies mentioned in (iii),
v. Groups or organisations acting with no set base of operations or operating across borders, in disputed areas or territories, transnationally or internationally,

b. Defining ‘potential threats’ as it appears in (a) as a situation which is arising or has arisen, where a real and deadly threat is posed to the population of a State or where a threat exists against the control of sovereign territory of the State, as posed by any of the aforementioned entities,

c. Defining the ‘tackling of potential threats’ as action taken by one State or multiple States acting either independently or in concert or military alliances of States, in any of the following ways,
i. Diplomatic pressures placed through both formal and informal channels and, bodies and mechanisms,
ii. Embargoes and sanctions placed both through formal and informal channels, bodies and mechanisms,
iii. Military action in the form of military strikes against legitimate targets or persons which are involved in posing the potential threat as outlined in (a), taking control of locations, areas and facilities which are necessary in order to eliminate the potential threat,
iv. Other measures which are considered necessary and appropriate to combat the potential threat that is posed;

2. Declares that the use of the measures as outlined in 1(c) must still be of the ‘minimum possible’ extent and seriousness in order to adequately complete the objectives set out and remove the potential threat for the foreseeable future, however recognising that a consideration of paramount importance to those States taking the action will be the safety of those personnel involved in the operations and recognising that there may legitimately be sufficient measures taken to ensure that there is no necessary risk placed on these personnel;

3. Emphasises that any deliberately inflicted civilian and innocent casualties or deliberately inflicted damage to clearly non-threatening resources, facilities or areas is entirely unacceptable and may result in the responsible party or parties being referred by the relevant authority to the relevant UN body, including, but not limited to, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and various International Courts;

4. Further Declares that all uses of force under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter be subject to swift review by an emergency session of the UNSC followed by a close monitoring of the situation by all relevant UN bodies and the UNSC and that the UNSC has the power to order the use of force be ended if it deems it was not necessary, was excessive or is futile;

5. Confirms that the UNSC remains the only body with authority to issue permission for force to be used legitimately in all circumstances arising where there is a request for permission under Chapter VII, Article 42 of the UN Charter, and that permission must be sought from this body prior to any action taking place in all circumstances excepting those in Chapter VII, Article 51;

6. Recommends that when considering Chapter VII, Article 42 the UNSC becomes,
a. More sympathetic to real and legitimate threats posed to Member States,
b. More open to the usefulness and sometimes necessary nature of pre-emptive force in order to preserve international peace and security and serve the greater good;

7. Further Proclaims that the UN has a duty to protect the citizens of States from severe human rights abuses;

8. Further Declares that the most relevant and senior body in matters relating to severe human rights abuses will be the newly commissioned United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), once it is in working order and until then shall be the currently relevant UN Human Rights body, noting however that where intervention in a State is thought to be necessary on Humanitarian grounds, the final decision as to whether the use of force is legitimate will lie with the UNSC and be subject to the vetoes of the Permanent Members (P5);

9. Reminds all bodies and States that the powers of the UNHRC and UNSC under Clauses 6 and 7 are not to be used to pursue agendas against certain States because of differences in policy, general hostility or poor relations between the States and that the powers exist solely for legitimate concerns regarding the most serious Human Rights situations on a global scale;

10. Accepts that the issues surrounding the national sovereignty of States are important and that should be borne in mind by all relevant bodies when considering whether or not action should be taken against a certain State on humanitarian grounds and if so, what action that should involve, though the duty to protect citizens of States from human rights and humanitarian abuses should not be sacrificed because it would involve impinging, to some degree, upon the sovereignty of a State, indeed, no State has the sovereign right to commit abuses against its citizens;

11. Recommends that the procedure for action to be taken in regards to humanitarian issues or human rights abuses be as follows,
a. The issue be considered by the relevant human rights body as laid down in Clause 7 and that a majority on that body recommend that the State under investigation be referred to the UNSC for its actions,
b. The decision on what action can and should be taken remains a decision within the power of the UNSC as laid down in Clause 7,
c. The actions to be taken be subject to the same conditions as present in Clause 3;

12. Further Declares that the decision making processes in Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this resolution are subject to the following considerations,
a. The number of lives claimed by the human rights or humanitarian situation and the distribution of these losses and whether this merits intervention by the United Nations,
b. Whether the alleged abuses taking place are justified by any valid external considerations such as legitimate security fears or necessary defensive measures,
c. Whether UN intervention would be possible, feasible and would solve the problem effectively or not without vastly disproportionate damage caused;

13. Resolves to bring the measures in this resolution in to effect as soon as possible.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

UnaChance

France backs this resolution and realises that the point one is a needed update to the UN charter for the 21st century and the challenges we face.

Reply 2

Nightowl

China sees no major flaws in Resolution 2006/01, and so unless any flaws can be found by other members then it will support this resolution in a vote.

Reply 3

gemgems89

Israel supports this resolution and applauds the USA for its major contribution.

Reply 4

henryt

Nepal shall support this resolution, given that nothing has been overlooked, and no flaws can be found.

Reply 5

aiman

Germany supports this resolution.

Reply 6

Nightowl

I have a question - At what point can human rights abuses be considered "severe", and who will be the group that moderate a countries human rights? Will it have to be referred by anothe country?

Reply 7

aiman

I'd assume that in accordance with Paragraph 8 it will be the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), once it is in working order and until then shall be the currently relevant UN Human Rights body.

Reply 8

Longshoredrift80

Severe will be determined by the UNHRC as laid out in Clause 8, same goes for the moderating group who will keep tabs on HR.

Reply 9

Lone Fox

Tha Marshall Islands has thoroughly reviewed the resolution and announces its support.

Reply 10

aiman

JonathanH, perhaps you should create a poll for the General Assembly to vote on this proposition.

Reply 11

Jangliss

Russia supports this resolution unconditionally.

Reply 12

strawberry

Malaysia cheers and throws confetti around in support of this resolution *teehee*

Reply 13

Longshoredrift80

aiman

JonathanH, perhaps you should create a poll for the General Assembly to vote on this proposition.

Well, the idea was to have a negotiation/amending/discussion thread and then take it forward to a vote a little while after in a separate thread after all that had taken place. And I still want a little more dicussion time before we move to the next stage.

Reply 14

brimstone

India is in full support of this resolution, after reviewing it thoroughly.

Reply 15

simeon125

South Korea, welcomes the USA Resolution 2006/01. As one of our key allies, and reading with 'fine tooth and comb'. We will support the Resultion. Truely this is a nation of democracy.

Reply 16

Longshoredrift80

OK, I'm soon going to submit this as a resolution for vote. I'l put everyone who has expressed support down as a co-submitter* unless they object. Anyone?

*(Currently: France, China, Israel, Nepal, Germany, Marshall Islands, Russia, Malaysia, India, South Korea)