Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Constitution of the United Nations

Happold, Matthew

doi:10.1017/s0922156503001304

Cited by 76 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the relevant resolutions of the Council were passed unanimously and under Chapter VII (Note 6). Also, the Council's approach in this phase has been called quasi-legislative by many writers (Happold, 2003;Rosand, 2004;Stromseth, 2003; since Resolution 1373 (Note 7) imposed general far-reaching obligations on all states for an unspecified time without addressing a particular situation. The problem of definition of terrorism however remained unresolved, although Resolution 1566 provides somehow a definition in its paragraph 3(Note 8).…”

Section: An Implicit Agreement In International Accordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Akbari¹

2023

ILR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In certain cases, making a distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is a matter of dispute between states. This article examines the main reason for this disagreement and suggests some criteria for separating these two concepts. By referring to the practice of states as well as some regional counter-terrorism conventions, this article argues that the root cause of the issue arises from the legal interpretation of self-determination at the present postcolonial epoch. Therefore, permissions and limitations arising from the right to self-determination clarify the main differences between freedom fighters and terrorists. Finally, the article concludes that a freedom fighter is someone who fights for legal rights in conformity with the law of armed conflict; while a terrorist is someone who fights to achieve illegal advantages by means of targeting civilian objects.

show abstract

Section: An Implicit Agreement In International Accordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Akbari¹

2023

ILR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shortly after the UNSC began to enact legislative resolutions, a debate emerged among International Law scholars about whether the UNSC had overstepped its legal mandate. Those who believed it did argued that the UNSC was only authorized to spring into action in conjunction with specific threats and, as a consequence, can only impose specific rather than generic obligations ( Happold 2003 ; Elberling 2005 ). Alvarez (2003) even referred to the Council's legislative resolutions as a form of hegemonic international law that threatened to undermine the Council's legitimacy.…”

Section: On the Normalization Of Emergency Powers: Observations From The United Nations Security Councilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency Politics After Globalization

Heupel

Koenig‐Archibugi

Kreuder-Sonnen

et al. 2021

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exceptional times call for exceptional measures—this formula is all too familiar in the domestic setting. Governments have often played loose with their state's constitution in the name of warding off an urgent threat. But after decades of increasing interconnectedness and emerging transnational governance, today one sees new forms of emergency politics that are cross-border in range. From the European Union to the World Health Organization, from supranational institutions to state governments acting in concert, the logic of emergency is embraced in international contexts, with Covid-19 the latest occasion. This Forum offers an entry-point into this emerging phenomenon. Taking as its point of departure two recent books, it examines the origins, forms, effects and normative stakes of emergency politics beyond the state. Among the matters discussed are the concept of emergency politics, the historical context of its contemporary forms, the patterns of decision-making associated with it, the implications for the legitimacy of transnational institutions, and the constitutional and political ways in which it might be contained. Transnational emergency politics seems likely to remain a central feature of the coming years, and our aim is to further its study in international relations.

show abstract

“…66 These measures are binding on all States and are directed at activities (for example financing terrorists) rather than the past sanctions regimes that were binding on all States but were targeted at certain States, including those allegedly supporting terrorism (for example, Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan). This apparent expansion in the legislative powers of the Security Council has caused considerable discussion (Happold, 2003;Talmon, 2005).…”

Section: B Limitations Upon Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Countermeasures and Sanctions

White¹,

Abass²

2010

International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of enforcement by means of non-forcible measures is one of the least developed areas of international law. Two legal regimes are relatively clear-nonforcible countermeasures taken by States (countermeasures) and non-forcible measures taken by international organizations (sanctions). The development of a restricted doctrine of countermeasures as the modern accepted form of self-help is considered, along with the partial centralization of coercion in international organizations. The also provided for the application of such measures, 3 a trend that was to be followed by some other regional organizations. A self-help system of non-forcible measures deriving from an earlier period of international relations, had to coexist with a system of centralized 'sanctions' based on notions of hierarchy and governance. In addition to the uncertainty that existed between the institutional level and the customary level, there was also a lack of clarity in the relationship between the universal organization (the United Nations) and other organizations. Article 53(1) of the UN Charter seems to provide that any non-forcible measures taken by regional organizations that amount to 'enforcement action' requires the authorization of the Security Council.The concept of lawful non-forcible measures survived the new world order of the post-1945 period. Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibited the 'threat or use of force', and this was clearly construed as military force (but see Paust and Blaustein, 1974, p 417).State practice in the immediate post-1945 period provided evidence of the continuing relevance of non-forcible measures. As Elagab states: '[r]egardless of whether the conditions of legality had been complied with in each case, the crucial feature was the very fact of such claims being staked at all. This provides a presumption of continuity of counter-measures as a viable mode of redress' (Elagab, 1988, p 38). In the first decade after the UN Charter the USA adopted, inter alia, measures freezing the assets of China, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. The coinage of the term 'countermeasures' in the Air Services Agreement case of 1978 4 and the codification of countermeasures by the International Law Commission (ILC), culminating in Chapter III of the Articles on State Responsibility of 2001, 5 represent its consolidation in the structures of international law.The inclusion of countermeasures was seen as a way of at least partially filling the lack 3

show abstract

Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Constitution of the United Nations

Cited by 76 publications

References 3 publications

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Emergency Politics After Globalization

Countermeasures and Sanctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About