L'accord du Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU légitimise-t-il l'usage de la force dans les relations internationales ? L'absence d'un tel accord délégitimise-t-elle l'usage de la force ? Discutez à partir de deux cas récents

Résumé du document

Since the foundation in 1945 of the United nations as a collective security system and especially, since the operation Desert storm in 1991, the problem of the use of force and whether it might ever be justified - and if so under which circumstances - lies at the heart of all debates about international order. The collective security is in fact, an alliance of the whole under the responsibility of the leader: The Security Council. The scale of UN "new interventionism" in fact pinpoints the evolution in international relations and the need to follow a common security policy where international obligations should rank alongside the defence of National interest. It is therefore obvious that the authority and the power of the Security Council follow this growth.

It has to be said that the security council's power rests on the Human's rights and the UN Charter, which was signed by all the members of the council; a few chapters of this Charter enables the Security council to use force under special conditions. In that case, it sounds obvious that the use of force is legitimized by the approval of the Security Council.
However, we should wonder whether the Security Council approval is not a mean for some member states, like us and UK, to further their own personal aims by using "legal force" and justifying it as "humanitarian intervention"? Is there a need to limit the discretion of member states authorized to use force? How far the Security Council resolution allows the use of force by members of the coalition?

Extraits

[...] According to this chapter, the use of force might be legitimized without the Security Council's approval in case of self defense even thought the security Council's decision afterward has to be respected to legalize such action. Many examples might be given to the application of this chapter. In April 1993, Iraqi intelligence attempted an alleged plot to assacinate president Bush in Kuwait . US immedialtely saw in this attempt Iraqi government and therefore, two month later attacked the Iraqi intelligence headquarter with missiles. [...]

[...] Another example would be the legalized use of force for Humanitarian relief operations[8] in Somalia; UNITAF was authorized to establish a secure environment for refugee and to facilitate the delivery of aids and humanitarian assistance. The obstruction of UN aid by parties on the ground was considered as a lack of cooperation and therefore, the member states were authorized to use force to ensure the proper delivery on the ground and to protect the UN peacekeepers. This shift in the UN system was also emphasized in the Brahimi Report in March 2000 where the group of experts set up by the UN Secretary General draw the conclusion that UN does not wage war. [...]

[...] The important aspect of the decision taken by the Security Council to use force in an inter-state conflict is its readiness compared to the past conflicts. As a matter of fact, the reaction of the Security Council to this kind of inter-state conflicts, which the UN secretary- general usually called a “senseless had been to avoid condemnation of the states and to call for a ceasefire in order to restore the peace. This was for instance, the case of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Tajikistan and Afghanistan when the Security Council condemned the use of force by both sides. [...]

[...] Paragraph 4 states that the member states have the authorization to use all necessary measures to ensure that Iraq immediately and unconditionally withdraws all its forces from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area and that this statement would remain valid during the period required for Iraq to comply with those obligations. Paragraph 4 pinpoints the fact that the use of force is legalized to secure the obligations set by the Security Council. The resolution 687 fulfilled the hope of making the UN an “instrument of Peace and stability”[6]. [...]

[...] As Christina Gray pinpoints in her analysis on the use of force against Iraq, it went from exception to norm and has become a new orthodoxy”[11] since 1995 that it is member states who have to undertake enforcement action. To conclude this first Part, we could say that the UN security council approval legitimize the use of force as it is founded with legal basis, is neutral and has no “national interest” in intervening in a conflict but only peaceful and humanitarian worldwide aims. [...]