ABSTRACT
Global governance
becomes critical in attaining world peace and security as trans-national crises
become complex and challenging in the paradigm of international politics. The
role of international organizations has been pivotal to combat global problems
such as terrorism, deviant states producing nuclear weapons, environmental
disasters and intra or inter states conflicts. In resolving these crises,
diplomacy is handled in secrecy because military intervention is costly, but
sanctions are employed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) once there
is a threat or an actual infringement on world peace and security. When these
sanction regimes are implemented, some states evade them, some allied states
may not be willing to execute UNSC resolutions, there could be conflict between
domestic and international laws and vulnerable citizens suffer the consequences
rather than their leaders who were agents of crises e.g Iran and Libya. The
study therefore examined global governance and the emerging trends in the
implementation of UNSC sanctions.
The research used the
doctrinal methodology by adopting a combination of laws, rules, regulations,
and instruments in international relations so as to rationalize the roles
played by UNSC sanctions in global governance. The historical approach was also
used to support the doctrinal method by tracing the development of global governance,
sanctions and the United Nations (UN). Other sources of data included
International Treaties and Instruments, UN Charter, scholarly journal articles,
international law textbooks, case law and relevant UN Resolutions. The study is
qualitative in nature.
The study found that
not all UNSC sanctions are effective in the paradigm of international politics
given the current state of global governance since only 10 percent of targeted
sanctions have yielded the intended results. The economic and humanitarian
consequences of sanction regimes of the UNSC on some selected states, groups
and individuals are still felt but has been ameliorated by the introduction of
smart sanctions. The emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions is a clear
improvement on the comprehensive sanctions. UNSC Sanctions are not made to last
forever as most people believe and there are means of terminating these
measures such as reverse Resolution.
The research concluded
that improved global governance is pertinent for a total effective implementation
of UNSC sanctions in our contemporary world in order to ensure global peace.
Despite the emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions, till date, the measures are
still left with their shortcomings such as infringement on freedom of movement
through a travel ban, more so, targeted sanctions are more evaded than
comprehensive sanctions. The study recommended that for UNSC sanctions to be
successful in this contemporary global governance and way beyond, Proper
assessments before, during and after a sanction episode should be observed so
as to reduce both economic and humanitarian consequences and sanction evasion;
and an autonomous review Procedure at the UNSC level is also to be established.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the Study
The
crises and threats presently being experienced worldwide are alarming and far
beyond the sustenance, grip and control of the states wherein, their occurrences
take place. Countries are warring against one another, some are so deviant that
they produce nuclear and ballistic materials. Individuals and groups are
executing terrorist activities that are unimaginably destructive and contaminable
deadly diseases such as Ebola are sometimes not efficiently curtailed since they
run across states’ borders. Moreover, during this era, we have Populist
insurgency across the globe, ‘BREXIT’, Niger fraud and speculations that some
states may also withdraw their membership from powerful organizations like the
United Nations. There are also unfriendly environmental occurrences and
situations, some nations are still not democratised, there is general
insecurity in all spheres of life (water, food, health, shelter and even
clothing), and the standard of living per person declines daily.
The way in which the world can become a better place by overcoming the
problems mentioned above through established and available actors/stakeholders,
resources, mechanisms and systems is crucial to this work.
Global governance is growingly necessary to
achieve international peace and security especially as the world becomes more
interconnected and complex. For over a half century, the global governance
institutions have been persistently responsible for the management of general
global menace in all spheres of human security. Since globalisation emerged,
the powers of global institutions have grown to ensure international security
and stability.[1]
Contemporary and emerging global menace and crises
need an effective collective answer. In international relations, a tool that is
insufficient is diplomacy; military intervention is expensive and frequently
politically unviable.[2]
Sanctions are frequently used by the United Nations Security Council (UN Security
Council) since the post-Cold War period in response to global threats and
problems. Sanctions arise between diplomacy and military interventions. These
sanctions are perceived as being very efficient when employed with other
strategies available to the international community. This efficiency is due to
the fact that diplomacy is conducted away from public view and military
onslaughts are very expensive.[3]
Global governance is indeed the management, control and resolutions of issues,
interests or problems that have trans-national concerns or repercussions such as
piracy, terrorism, international trade and security, climate change amongst others.
These events go beyond the boundaries of a single state and eventually have
both positive and negative global results.
The role of the United Nations (UN)[4] in
global governance is very germane in international politics. In the absence of
a world government to ascertain the rules and regulations governing relations between
states, diverse workable means are needed to resolve global crises.[5]
The foundation to establish institutional framework for policy formulation and
decision making at the international level is implemented by the UN.[6]
The
entire paradigm of the UN was formulated to deal with the basic actors in
international politics such as states. In order to achieve this purpose, the UN Security Council is
imposed with a distinct power to deal with threats to the international peace
and security through a procedure of international security created in global
politics. The UN Security Council responds to those threats by
imposing sanctions against the origin of the intimidation.[7]
Subsequent to the Cold War, comprehensive sanctions have been polished and have
emerged in commendable manner through a change in types of targets and purposes
of these measures. Beginning in 1992, sanctions moved gradually away from the
comprehensive model, often including a general trade embargo, and their
associated humanitarian impact, toward targeting leaders and decision-makers
responsible for defying international norms.[8]
Recently, UN Security Council
sanctions are in the glare of the public especially regarding Al Qaida-Taliban,
Côte d'Ivoire, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea),
Iran, and Libya and currently Syria with meaningful expansion of traditional
targeted sanctions in some cases. These sanction regimes both emphasize the
increasing use of this measure and unending doubts about the future of UN Security Council
sanctions in the face of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the adaptability
of some present targets, pervasive misconceptions, and other problems to
sanctions' legality, integrity, and effectiveness.[9]
Mostly, sanctions are seen as a
substitute to military force. When sanctions are imposed to punish an offending
party socially, economically, or politically rather than militarily, it is employed
with the intentions to solve a conflict without the mass suffering and
sacrifice required by war. Sanctions have sometimes been effective, and are
broadly used.[10] There were nearly as many sanction episodes
after the end of the Cold War as there were during the first ninety years of
the twentieth century.[11]
The most high-profile cases were comprehensive UN sanctions imposed on Iraq,
Haiti, and former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.[12] Ultimately,
all three episodes generated at least moderate concessions.[13]
In this research, the history and uses of sanctions, some associated problems,
and how sanctions can be made more effective in terms of implementation will be
examined.
The UN Security Council
has targeted sanctions against individuals and other non-state actors in its
application of the measures. When sanctions were employed for the very first
time, it was the white minority government of Southern Rhodesia, which was a
British Colony at the time and not a sovereign state that was besieged.[14]
Practically all UN Security Council
sanctions regimes partly affected individuals and occasionally members of
governments and their closest associates and relatives.[15]
In recent years, many persons are ‘blacklisted’ by the UN Security Council
as likely terrorists.[16]
Usually such sanctions include travel bans and Assets freeze. These types of
sanctions are the emerging trends in the implementation of UN Security Council
sanctions and are known as “Targeted or Smart Sanctions”.[17]
A mechanism governing the behaviour of all
stakeholders in the international political system is International law with
the main function of ensuring peace and security in the global community.[18] A
new set of issues concerning possible violations of individual rights were
raised by targeted sanctions which were developed as a consequence of such concerns.[19] The
Kadi case[20] is a judgement that bothers on the challenges
of individuals who were listed by the sanctions committee of the UN Security Council,[21] and the Al-Jedda case[22]
is on the legal consequences of targeted sanctions. These two cases are thoroughly
examined in chapter four of this research. The use of force though not
prohibited is usually not the desired way of regulating international actors’
behaviour; hence the use of sanctions is often desired to compel a state to
adhere to the rules of international law.[23]
The
UN through her Security Council is built as a global institution that possesses
the legal rights to guarantee international peace and security by adopting
mechanisms not involving the use of force to ensure its decision.[24]The UN Security Council has the responsibility of preventing and repressing acts of
encroachment in all states especially in instances of a breach of or threat to
peace or international security. It can also intervene if state governments
(failed state situations) cease to protect human rights and unable to exercise
control of governance as was the situation in Libya. [25] There
are 15 UN Member States in the Security Council, out of which, five are persistently
permanent members,[26]
namely, China, United States (U.S), United Kingdom (U.K), France and Russia.
The other ten are non-permanent members that are elected by the General
Assembly to two year non-renewable term. The membership at the Security Council
are regionally chosen to depict representation, so that three members are from
Africa, two each from Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and 1 representative
from Eastern Europe.[27] The UN Security Council has wide powers to ensure global peace and security, most especially
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and its decisions are binding on all UN
members.[28]
Once the UN Security Council
determines that there exists a threat to peace, breach of peace or act of
aggression on any state, it is empowered to give consideration to the
application of measures provided in articles 41 and 42.[29]
Article 39 of the
Charter provides that “the Security Council shall first determine the existence
of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression to be
able to take necessary measures pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter”.
Article 41 states that:
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.[30]
The
quotation provides for non-military interventions by the UN Security Council and it is broadly linked with the
application of sanctions episodes.[31]
The Security
Council has made use of a variety of non-military measures under Article 41 of
the Charter. In the case of Iraq[32],
the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[33]
and Haiti[34], the
Council imposed a complete commercial and financial embargo, supported by
measures such as a flight embargo and prohibition of participation in sporting
events. For instance a relevant extract from the UN Security Council resolution
on Haiti reads as follows:
(a)
All states should prohibit the sale of petroleum, petroleum products,
arms and related materials including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, police equipment and
spare parts for any aforementioned to Haiti;
(b)
A ban on all traffic from entering the territorial waters of the
country carrying any of the aforementioned products
(c)
Any foreign funds held by Haiti would be frozen.[35]
Mostly
in other cases, however, the UN Security Council was more selective. In the
case of resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) on Libya, prohibition of flights
to and from that country was buttressed by the responsibility to freeze Libyan
assets and the prohibition to export oil-related equipment.[36]
The UN Security Council Resolution 748 decided that, all member states should:
(a)
Deny permission of Libyan aircraft to take off from, land in or
overfly their territory if it has taken off from Libyan territory, excluding humanitarian
need;
(b)
Prohibit the supply of aircraft or aircraft components or the
provision Servicing of aircraft or aircraft components;
(c)
Prohibit the provision of weapons, ammunition or other military equipment
to Libya and technical advice or training;
(d)
withdraw officials present in Libya that advise the Libyan authorities
on military matters;
(e)
significantly reduce diplomatic and consular personnel in Libya;
(f)
prevent the operation of Libyan airline offices;
(g)
deny or expel Libyan nationals involved in terrorist activities in
other.[37]
Comprehensive sanctions were
applied to Iraq in reaction to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and its programs to
develop weapons of mass destruction (1990-2003) immediately after the Cold war.[38]
These comprehensive sanctions were also applied during the break-up of the
former Yugoslavia (1991- 1996).[39]
The UN Security
council expressed concerns at the situation in
the former Yugoslavia, notably the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
requesting that all parties end the fighting and respect the ceasefire
agreement signed on April 12 1992.[40]
These sanctions were further
applied in Haiti (1993-1994).[41]
These comprehensive sanctions episodes were implemented when President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in a coup,[42]
and the UN Security Council did not have an alternative but to impose further
international sanctions on the country after the military authorities refused
to ensure an agreement to hand over power.[43]
These were mainly economic or travel bans as provided for in the UN Charter.[44]
The
1990s witnessed a proliferation of UN Security Council sanction regimes, most often in the form of
targeted sanctions within the context of an intrastate conflict. The following
are some of the resolutions imposed, 751 Somalia (1992-present),[45] 788
Liberia (19922001);[46]
820 Yugoslavia
(1993-1996;[47]
864 Angola
(1993-2002),[48] 918 Rwanda (1994-2008),[49] 1132 Sierra Leone (1997-2010),[50]1160 Kosovo (1998-2001).[51]
It was only in 1995
that all permanent members definitively recognised that “further collective
actions in the Security Council within the context of any future sanctions
regime should be directed to minimize unintended adverse side-effects of
sanctions on the most vulnerable segments of targeted countries.[52]
The
Security Council was established by the UN Charter.[53]
The Security
Council is the main organ responsible for the maintenance of global peace and international
security at the UN and is strongly dependent upon the will of the member states
since it does not have troops of its own.[54] This Thesis seeks to examine the implementation of the UN Security
Council and whether sanctions do really work in a 21st Century global
governance. In this research, 21st Century global governance is adopted so as
to efficiently review targeted sanctions of the UN Security Council which came
to lime light around this time.
[1] Jeong
In-Hye, ‘What Role Should Global Governance Organizations Play in Promoting
International Security Over The Next Two Decades’. (2010), International
Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy, Available At
<http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/articles/symposium2010/participant-papers/In-Hye_Jeong_-_China.pdf>,
Accessed 3 January 2016.
[3]
Enrico Carish, and Loraine Rickard-Marti, Global
Threats and the Role of United Nations,(International Policy Analysis, Fes
,New York, 2011) 2.
[4]
Herein after, referred to as UN in this Thesis.
[5] Sagarika
Dutt, ‘The UN and Global Governance: Do Ideas Alone Help? ’ (2012), India Quarterly, Volume 68, Number 2, 187.
[6] ibid
[7]
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
[9] Noah Birkhauseer, ‘Sanctions of the Security
Council against Individuals-Some Human Rights Problems’ Available At
<http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/Birkhauser.PDF> Accessed 20
December 2014.
[11] Hufbauer Gary,
Jeffrey Schott, Kimberly Elliott, and Barbara Oegg, Economic Sanctions reconsidered,
(3rd edn. Washington: Institute for
International Economics, 2007).
[12] Cortright David, and George Lopez,‘Containing
Iraq: Sanctions Worked’ , (2004), Foreign
Affairs, Volume
83, Number 4, 90–100; Retrieved from Daniel
Drezner, Sanctions Sometimes Smart: ‘Targeted Sanctions in Theory and
Practice’, (2011), International Studies
Review, Volume 13, 96–108.
[14]
SC/RES/232, (1966).
[15] This
was the case in Liberia SC/RES/1343 (2001), para. 7 and in Côte d’Ivoire
SC/RES/1572, (2004), para 9, 11) and SC/RES/1973, (2011), para 6.
[16]
Sanctions against individuals and entities belonging to or associated with the
Taliban and Al-Qaida organization, SC/RES/1267 (1999); SC/RES/3333, (2000);
SC/RES/1390, (2002).
[18]Chiara
Franco, ‘coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law’, Available at
<http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai1505.pdf>, accessed 16
December, 2015.
[20] Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. European Commission,
[2010] ECR II-0000 (30 September 2010).
[21]
SC/Res/1330 (2000).
[22] Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, Appl. No.
27021/087, ECtHR (Judgment) [Grand Chamber] (7 July 2011).
[23]
Cynthia Chipanga and Torque Mude, ‘An Analysis of the
Effectiveness of Sanctions as a Law Enforcement Tool in International Law: A
Case Study of Zimbabwe from 2001 to 2013’, (2015), Open Journal of Political
Science, Volume 5, 291-295.
[24] Ian Hurd, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations
Security Council (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007), 12; See also, Simon Chesterman, The UN
Security Council and the Rule of Law: The Role of the Security Council
in Strengthening A Rule-Based International System, Institute for International
Law and Justice (Vienna: Wograndl
Druck, Mattersburg, 2008), 1.
[27] In 1965, the composition of the non-permanent
members was increased from six elected members to ten. This change was followed
by the assumption of the People’s Republic of China to the permanent seat
previously occupied by the Republic of China, in 1971. Since then the composition
of the Security Council has remained unchanged.
[28] Devon
Whittle, ‘The Limits of Legality and the United Nations Security Council:
Applying the Extra-Legal Measures Model to Chapter VII Action,’ (2015), Euro J Int Law, volume 26, Number 3, 671-698.
[29] Art.
39 of the UN Charter, 1945.
[31] Gary
Wilson, The United Nations and Collective
Responsibility( 1st Edition, Routledge, 2014) 84
[32]
SC/RES/661(1990) and SC/RES/687(1990)
[33]
SC/RES/757(1992)
[34]
SC/RES/841(1993)
[35]
SC/RES/841(1993), Art.10.
[36]Gian
Lucia Burci, ‘The Legal Aspect of Economic Sanctions,’ Available At
<http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LCIL/documents/papers/Burci.pdf>,
Accessed December 17 2015.
[38]
SC/RES/661(1990) and SC/RES/687(1990).
[39]
SC/RES/752(1992) and SC/RES/757(1992).
[40]
Bethlehem Daniel and Weller Marc, The
‘Yugoslav’ Crisis in International Law: General Issues, (Cambridge
University Press,2007) 7
[41]
SC/RES/873(1993) and SC/RES/917(1994)
[42]UN Sanctions (2013) NO. 3: Special Research Report –Security
Council Report, Available at <securitycouncilreport.org>, Accessed 22
December, 2014.
[43] Steeve
Coupeau, The History of Haiti,(Greenwood
Publishing Group,2008), 119.
[44] Art.
41 of the UN Charter, 1945.
[45]
SC/RES/751 (1992), It was
adopted to facilitate an immediate cessation of hostilities and an observance
of a ceasefire throughout the country to promote the process of reconciliation
and to provide humanitarian aid;
[46]
SC/RES/788(1992), was
adopted after determining that the deterioration of the situation in Liberia
constituted a threat to international peace and security, the Council imposed
an arms embargo on the country for the purposes of establishing peace and
stability
[47]
SC/RES/820(1993), ), resolution went on to confirm the peace plan
for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its acceptance by two of the Bosnian parties,
however concern was expressed over the rejection by the Bosnian Serb party of
the Agreement on Interim arrangements. All the stakeholders were to ensure a
ceasefire and engage in no further hostilities, “respecting the right of the
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and international humanitarian
agencies to have unimpeded access to the entire country and ensure the safety
of their staff”
[48]
SC/RES/864(1993), in this resolution, the UN Security Council
“expressed its concern about the deteriorating political, military and
humanitarian situation in Angola and that, despite all previous resolutions and
efforts, peace talks were suspended and no ceasefire was in effect.”
[49]
SC/RES/918(1994), the Council expressed “its alarm and condemnation at
the continuing large-scale violence in the country which resulted in the death
of thousands of innocent civilians, and went on to impose an arms embargo on
the country”
[50]
SC/RES/1132(1997), The
President of the UN Security Council had earlier condemned the coup d'état in
Sierra Leone and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had
imposed sanctions on the junta. Acting under Chapter VII, the Security Council
“demanded that the junta relinquish power and to cease all attacks and violence
in the country, so that humanitarian aid could be delivered to the civilian
population”.
[51]
SC/RES/1160(1998), was adopted after noting the situation in Kosovo,
the Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, imposed an
arms embargo and economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
hoping to end the use of excessive force by the government,
[54] Temitope
oludoun, ‘Peace and Security
as a Catalyst for the Reform of the UN Security Council,’ (2014) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika Cilt 10, Sayı:
39, ss.63-96.
================================================================
Item Type: Ph.D Material | Attribute: 219 pages | Chapters: 1-5
Format: MS Word | Price: N3,000 | Delivery: Within 30Mins.
================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment