Chapter VII of theUnited Nations Charter sets out theUN Security Council's powers to maintainpeace. It gives the Security Council the authority to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security.”
TheUN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking otherUN member states is central to the purpose for which theUN was founded in the wake of the destruction ofWorld War II: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in theNuremberg Trials' concept of acrime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements" (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible.
Chapter VII also gives theMilitary Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council. Otherwise, that chapter is used when theUNSC is authorizing either a member state or a coalition of the willing to act nationally or through regional organizations to address this threat – if necessary with all necessary measures, including the use of outright force. The phrase ‘all necessary measures’ is to be taken literally. Any military action performed through land, air, and sea forces is specifically allowed (UN Charter Article 42). Such action could entail troop deployment, the enforcement of a no-fly-zone, even the use of aerial bombardment.[1]
The United Nations was established afterWorld War II and the ultimate failure ofdiplomacy despite the existence of theLeague of Nations in the years between the First and Second World War. The Security Council was thus granted broad powers through Chapter VII as a reaction to the failure of the League.[2] These broad powers allow it to enjoy greater power than any other international organization in history. It can be argued that the strong executive powers granted to it give it the role of 'executive of the international community'[3] or even of an 'international government'.[2][4]
The covenant of the League of Nations provided, for the first time in history, enforcement of international responsibilities (i.e. adhering to theCovenant of the League of Nations) through economic and military sanctions. Member states were also obliged,even without prior decision by the council to take action against states that acted unlawfully in the eyes of the Covenant.[5] This meant that the peace process was largely dependent on the willingness of member states, because the Covenant did not provide binding decisions; The Council of the League was only responsible for recommending military force. As well as this, Article 11 paragraph 1 of the League’s Covenant states:
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
This can be seen as an authorization of the use of force and other enforcement measures, however, states repeatedly insisted that this did not make decisions by the League binding.[2][6]
This resulted in an unprecedented will by both the powers at theDumbarton Oaks Conference and the states present at theSan Francisco Conference to submit to a central organ like that of the Security Council. Despite long debate over whether theGeneral Assembly should also have power over decisions made by the Security Council, it was eventually decided by a large majority vote[7] that the Security Council should maintain its executive power because, as the major powers emphasized, a strong executive organ would be needed for the maintenance of world peace. This emphasis was advocated in particular by the Chinese representative, recalling the powerlessness of the League during theManchuria Crisis.[2][8]
Articles 41 and 42 jointly establish the right of the Security Council to arrange for the use of both non-armed (Article 41) and armed (Article 42) measures to put its decisions into effect.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfillment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
In 1947, theMilitary Staff Committee reported its recommendations to theSecurity Council regarding the implementation of Article 43. TheChiefs of Staff of the Permanent Members, split byCold War politics, could not agree. Of the 41 articles in the Report of the Military Staff Committee (UN Document S/336) (April 30, 1947) only 25 could be agreed between the five powers.[9] Thus Article 43 agreements have never been concluded. However, the Security Council remained technically seized of the matter until 1997.
Most Chapter VII resolutions (1) determine the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression in accordance with Article 39, and (2) make a decision explicitly under Chapter VII. However, not all resolutions are that explicit, there is disagreement about the Chapter VII status of a small number of resolutions. As a reaction to this ambiguity, a formal definition of Chapter VII resolutions has recently been proposed:
A Security Council Resolution is considered to be 'a Chapter VII resolution' if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly or implicitly states that the Council is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs.[10]
Chapter VII resolutions are very rarely isolated measures. Often the first response to a crisis is a resolution demanding the crisis be ended. This is only later followed by an actual Chapter VII resolution detailing the measures required to secure compliance with the first resolution. Sometimes dozens of resolutions are passed in subsequent years to modify and extend the mandate of the first Chapter VII resolution as the situation evolves.[11]
The list of Chapter VII interventions includes:
See alsoTimeline of United Nations peacekeeping missions, some of which were created under the authority of Chapter VI rather than VII.
Article 53 inChapter VIII of the United Nations Charter permits "the Security Council to use regional arrangements as appropriate or to authorize enforcement action by such arrangements".[12]
Article 51 provides for the right of countries to engage inself-defence, includingcollective self-defence, against an armed attack[13][14] and was included during theSan Francisco Conference in 1945.[14][15]
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
According to a study by researchers atHarvard Law School, between 1945 and 2018, UN Member States submitted 433 communications to the Security Council of measures taken in purported exercise of the right of self-defense.[16]
This article was the impetus formuch international pact-making and has been cited by theUnited States as support for theNicaragua case, the2003 invasion of Iraq, and thelegality of the Vietnam War, as well as by many other countries. According to that argument, "although South Vietnam is not an independent sovereign State or a member of the United Nations, it nevertheless enjoys the right of self-defense, and the United States is entitled to participate in its collective defense."[17] Another aspect is if the right of self-defense still exists if the UN Security Council has taken measures to deal with the conflict.[18] There are contradictory opinions whether this right still exists once the Security Council has taken action.[18] Article 51 has been described as difficult to adjudicate with any certainty in real-life.[19]
In a letter to the UN Security Council requestingmilitary intervention in Yemen, Yemen's PresidentHadi invoked Article 51.[20]
The United States used Article 51 to justify theassassination of Qasem Soleimani and U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against anIran-backed militia group.[21]
The president of Russia,Vladimir Putin, cited Article 51in a speech to justify the2022 invasion of Ukraine and escalation of thewar in Donbas.[22][23]
| Power | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | |||||||
| Missions | |||||||
| Members |
| ||||||
| Related | |||||||
| Text | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organs created | |||||||
| History |
| ||||||
