07 Mar Are the Security Council Resolutions Against Iran “Illegal”?
07.03.07
|
4 Comments
I think we have talked about this before on this blog, but I don’t think we ever came to a resolution on Iran’s argument that Security Council sanctions against its nuclear program are “illegal.” Iran’s foreign minister is apparently arguing here that the UNSC resolutions are “politically motivated and unprincipled resolutions” which violate international law, rules and regulations. It “ignores Iran’s legal and inalienable rights guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the nuclear safeguards regime.”
I don’t exactly understand the argument fully or maybe there is no real argument. But it would be interesting to find out what it is and whether it has any plausibility.
Of course Hosseini is just rehearsing diplomatic noise, but there is a legal basis for his claims, which we might each investigate from our own intellectual perspectives. Here’s the “inalienable right” provision Hosseini is referring to Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NPT Article II prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices by non-nuclear weapons states, but in Article IV directs that: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. Put simply Hosseini’s claim is based in a conflation of two overlapping regimes and the meaningful facts examined under these regimes. The two legal questions being conflated here— (1) the provisions of the NPT and (2) the scope of UNSC resolutions under the UN Charter— lean on a couple of empirical characterizations to leverage their force. First the characterization of prohibited “weapons” vs. peaceful “technology,” which forms the legality/ illegality nexus for the NPT and (2) the characterization of this set of facts as “a threat to international… Read more »
Missing link above:
NPT
well, in any event, Art. 103 to the UN Charter provides (in full) that “in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”
So it would seem any determination by the Security Council, especially in a specific area of its competence, such as determining breaches of international peace, would trump any “inalienable right” in the NPT.
oops that was too broad. First sentence of second paragraph should read “any determination of the Security Council, especially in a specific area of its competence, (and where not limited by other Charter provisions or customary international law)”
In which case I suppose I should state that I am of the view that the UNSC may issue any decision that does not violate the charter or (only) jus cogens norms. That is, I do think the UNSC can trump conventional customary international law when deciding amongst its signatory states. Otherwise, especially given the fluid and interpretive nature of custom, the decision-making power of the UNSC would be restricted in a way contemplated neither by the Charter nor by its very existence as an executive/decision-making body.