In his article on The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the
Use of Force, Erik Voeten states that the observation of state behavior could lead us to the
assumption that it is costly for a state to not get the Security Council’s (SC) approval for a
forceful action against another state. Costly, could on the one hand refer to an extreme
increase considering funding issues. Without proper legitimization, it seems to be harder for
states to find cooperatives because, “governments are more willing to cooperate voluntarily
once the SC has conferred its blessing” (Voeten 528). This leads to higher funding costs for
the operating state. On the other hand, the costs of a unilateral act might lie in the decline of
support and reputation a state government gets within the international society and amongst
its own population in general. Therefore, Voeten seems to argue that political elites do not
necessarily consider the SC as an, “independent judgment on the appropriateness of an
intervention”, but rather behave rationally in trying to minimize the costs by getting, “political
reassurance about the consequences of proposed military adventures” (527). Why does this
institution possess the legitimization to give them this reassurance? And to what extent does
this legitimization lie in the legal structure and norms it has incorporated? The following
essay shall deal with Voeten’s observations of increasing state acceptance and trust in the
authorization of the SC, and his explanations for this process. Furthermore, it shall focus on
the factor of legal norms and argue for a high importance of the legal norms influence while
constituting and providing the foundation of the SC’s status in the international society. In
connection to this I will highlight the critique which was raised by several scholars and
politicians as well, that todays structure of the SC might not be appropriate anymore and
restructuring could help in continuing its increase in legitimacy.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Role of Legal Norms in International Law
3. Consistency and Legitimacy in Security Council Decisions
4. Peremptory Norms and Customary International Law
5. Predictability and Stability in the International System
6. Theoretical Perspectives on Legal Norms
7. The Debate on Security Council Restructuring
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the extent to which legal norms regarding the use of armed force influence states' motivations to seek United Nations Security Council (SC) authorization for military interventions, while analyzing the structural legitimacy of the Security Council in a changing global political landscape.
- The influence of legal norms on state behavior and international legitimacy.
- The relationship between the UN Charter, legal norms, and the Security Council's decision-making process.
- The role of consistency and predictability in maintaining the SC's authority.
- Critiques of the current SC structure and arguments for reform among major global powers.
Excerpt from the Book
International Law in “High Politics”
In his article on The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force, Erik Voeten states that the observation of state behavior could lead us to the assumption that it is costly for a state to not get the Security Council’s (SC) approval for a forceful action against another state. Costly, could on the one hand refer to an extreme increase considering funding issues. Without proper legitimization, it seems to be harder for states to find cooperatives because, “governments are more willing to cooperate voluntarily once the SC has conferred its blessing” (Voeten 528). This leads to higher funding costs for the operating state. On the other hand, the costs of a unilateral act might lie in the decline of support and reputation a state government gets within the international society and amongst its own population in general.
Therefore, Voeten seems to argue that political elites do not necessarily consider the SC as an, “independent judgment on the appropriateness of an intervention”, but rather behave rationally in trying to minimize the costs by getting, “political reassurance about the consequences of proposed military adventures” (527). Why does this institution possess the legitimization to give them this reassurance? And to what extent does this legitimization lie in the legal structure and norms it has incorporated? The following essay shall deal with Voeten’s observations of increasing state acceptance and trust in the authorization of the SC, and his explanations for this process.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research question regarding the influence of legal norms on states' desire for Security Council endorsement and outlines the scope of the analysis.
2. The Role of Legal Norms in International Law: This section defines legal norms within the UN framework and explains how they govern state conduct and the authorization of military force.
3. Consistency and Legitimacy in Security Council Decisions: This chapter examines the correlation between consistent decision-making processes and the perceived legitimacy of the Security Council among member states.
4. Peremptory Norms and Customary International Law: This section discusses the impact of jus cogens norms on justifying military operations and the reliance of states on SC resolutions to ensure compliance with international law.
5. Predictability and Stability in the International System: This chapter argues that legal norms provide a necessary framework for stability in an otherwise anarchical international system.
6. Theoretical Perspectives on Legal Norms: This section applies Hans Kelsen's concept of law to explain the relationship between norms, sanctions, and the credibility of international institutions.
7. The Debate on Security Council Restructuring: This chapter analyzes the criticism of current undemocratic procedures and the arguments for expanding the Security Council to include nations like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil.
Keywords
United Nations, Security Council, International Law, Legal Norms, Military Intervention, Legitimacy, Sovereignty, Jus Cogens, Global Governance, UN Charter, Political Reassurance, International Security, State Behavior, Multilateralism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research examines how legal norms influence the behavior of states and their strategic decision-making regarding the pursuit of UN Security Council authorization for military interventions.
What are the primary themes discussed in the text?
The text centers on the legitimacy of the Security Council, the impact of international legal frameworks on state policy, and the ongoing debate regarding the necessity of restructuring the Council.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks to what extent legal norms concerning the use of force drive governments to seek Security Council endorsement for their military actions.
Which theoretical approach is applied in this analysis?
The work combines an analysis of Erik Voeten's political observations with Hans Kelsen's legal concepts, while also incorporating perspectives from International Relations realism.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers the definition of legal norms in the UN Charter, the role of consistency in legitimization, the influence of peremptory norms, and the critique of current P-5 dominance.
Which keywords best describe this publication?
Key terms include UN Security Council, International Law, Legitimacy, Military Intervention, and State Sovereignty.
How does the author define the relationship between predictability and international stability?
The author argues that legal norms create a predictable framework for actor behavior, which reduces uncertainty and provides a measure of stability in an anarchical international system.
Why is the Security Council criticized for its current decision-making processes?
Critics argue that the Security Council's procedures are undemocratic, particularly due to the P-5 veto power and the overrepresentation of the 1945 victors of World War II.
Does the author suggest that the US experience contradicts the influence of legal norms?
The author acknowledges the US as an exceptional case that has engaged in unauthorized military actions, but maintains that legal norms still exert significant influence on the broader international community.
What argument is presented for the inclusion of new members in the Security Council?
The author argues that including major contributors and influential nations like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil would enhance the legitimacy of the Council and improve the oversight of powerful member states.
- Quote paper
- Timo Dersch (Author), 2012, To what extent do legal norms relating to the use of armed force influence governments’ desire to secure Security Council endorsement of their military actions?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/206094
