The Veto in Light of Jus Cogens: The Conflict Between the Practice of Permanent Members of the Security Council and Principles of International Law

Kadkhodaei, Abbas Ali; Lohrasbi, Amir

The Veto in Light of Jus Cogens: The Conflict Between the Practice of Permanent Members of the Security Council and Principles of International Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei ¹

Amir Lohrasbi ²

¹ Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran

² Ph.D. Student in Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Jus cogens, as a fundamental and non-derogable principle of international law, has come into conflict with the broad powers of the United Nations Security Council. This conflict has given rise to significant questions regarding the limits of the Security Council's authority and its obligation to adhere to these norms. On one hand, the Security Council, as the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, possesses powers that may sometimes lead to decisions or practices by its members that conflict with jus cogens, such as the prohibition of genocide. On the other hand, jus cogens hold such a high status in the international legal order that they can overshadow the actions of the Security Council members. In this context, the veto power, as an exclusive tool available to the five permanent members of the Security Council, can exacerbate this conflict, raising questions about its legal legitimacy when used to violate jus cogens. This article, seeks to address the aforementioned issue by proving its hypothesis that the exercise of the veto power must be limited in cases where it violates jus cogens. It emphasizes the necessity of utilizing the capacity of the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice to implement Article 96 of the Charter.

Keywords

International Law

Jus Cogens

Security Council

United States

Veto Power

Subjects

§ محمودی، سیدهادی و باقری، فرهاد. (۱۴۰۱). دیالکتیک تئوری‌ها و عناصر قواعد آمره در حقوق بین‌الملل. فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، دوره 52، شماره 2، صص 687-708

§ رجبی، سعید؛ میرعباسی، باقر و صلاحی، سهراب. (۱۴۰۱). بررسی رویه های تحدید حق وتو در شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد. فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، دوره 25، شماره 99 - شماره پیاپی 99، صص 11-40

1. Akande, D. (1997). The International Court of Justice and the Security Council: Is there room for judicial control of decisions of the political organs of the United Nations? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(2), 309–322

2. Kingdom), request for the indication of provisional measures, order

3. Constantinides, A. (2004, May). An overview of legal restraints on Security Council Chapter VII action with a focus on post-conflict Iraq [Paper presentation]. European Society of International Law Inaugural Conference, Florence, Italy. http://esil-sedi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Constantinides_0.pdf

4. Cronin, B., & Hurd, I. (Eds.). (2008). The UN Security Council and the politics of international authority. Routledge.

5. de Castro, J. (1971). Separate opinion. In Legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), advisory opinion

6. Farrall, J. M. (2007). United Nations sanctions and the rule of law. Cambridge University Press.

7. Fitzmaurice, G. G. (1971). Dissenting opinion. In Legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), advisory opinion

8. Heieck, J. (2018). A duty to prevent genocide: Due diligence obligations among the P5. Edward Elgar Publishing.

9. International Court of Justice Reports. (1948). Conditions of admission of a state to membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), advisory opinion.

10. International Court of Justice Reports. (1971). Legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), advisory opinion.

11. International Court of Justice Reports. (1992). Case concerning questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), request for the indication of provisional measures, order.

12. International Court of Justice Reports. (1996). Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, advisory opinion.

13. International Court of Justice Reports. (2007). Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), judgment.

14. International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. United Nations.

15. International Law Commission. (2011). Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, Vol. II, Part Two. United Nations.

16. Jennings, R. Y. (1998). Dissenting opinion. In Case concerning questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), preliminary objections, judgment

17. Luck, E. C. (2006). UN Security Council: Practice and promise. Routledge.

18. Peters, A. (2011). The Security Council’s responsibility to protect. International Organizations Law Review, 8(1), 15–40

19. Roosevelt, F. D. (1943). Fireside chat. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved October [insert date], 2023, from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16356

20. Security Council Report. (2016). The veto (Report No. 3).

21. Trahan, J. (2020). Existing legal limits to Security Council veto power in the face of atrocity crimes. Cambridge University Press.

22. United Nations General Assembly. (1946, December 13). Resolution 40(I).

23. United Nations General Assembly. (1947, November 21). Resolution 117(II).

24. United Nations General Assembly. (1949, April 14). Resolution 267(III).

25. United Nations General Assembly. (1949, December 1). Resolution 290(IV).

26. United Nations Security Council Resolution. (1992). Resolution 748. Retrieved from https://undocs.org/S/RES/748(1992)

27. United Nations. (1945, June 11). Summary report of the seventeenth meeting of Committee III/I, Commission III: Security Council (Doc. 922).

28. United Nations. (1945, June 20). Verbatim minutes of the fifth meeting of Commission III (Doc. 1150).

29. United Nations. (1945, June 20). Verbatim minutes of the fourth meeting of Commission III, Opera House (Doc. 1149).

30. United Nations. (2017, June 20). Report of the Secretary-General: Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies (UN Doc. A/71/80/Add.1). https://undocs.org/a/71/80/Add.1

31. United Nations. (1945) The San Francisco Conference. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/1945-san-francisco-conference/index.html

32. Weeramantry, C. G. (1992). Dissenting opinion. In Case concerning questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), request for the indication of provisional measures, order

33. Yiu, H. (2009). 'Jus cogens', the veto and the responsibility to protect: A new perspective. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, 7, 207–253.