Chapter VII, Articles 39-42:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
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.
Gray comments that in recent decades the Security Council's "readiness to look at the wider consequences of civil conflict or illegal overthrow of a government and treat it as a threat to international peace and Security" has become apparent. The Security Council has also, she claims, demonstrated a "lack of concern with the specification of the exact legal basis for its actions."
ReplyDeleteI don't think either of these trends is surprising. On the one hand, since it's become increasingly obvious that the "wider consequences" of sudden or violent domestic changes do have international repercussions, it makes sense that the Security Council has been paying more attention to them.
On the other hand, if we accept the legal authority of Article 42--which the Security Council clearly does--then Articles 39-42 grant it permission to deliberate and choose among a range of coercive and non-coercive options for the implementation of its command, including, but not limited to advising disputants, imposing economic sanctions on and politically isolating outlaw states, and taking armed action to restore international peace and security as a last resort.