10.04.2013 Views

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

(Of course, history was to show he could be equally successful at achieving the opposite<br />

effect, in 2003.)<br />

In noting this optimism and near-unanimity it is important not to over-stress it. There<br />

was division and there was scepticism, particularly from the UK, as to the viability of<br />

taking the UN route to a solution. Thatcher was the leading sceptic, unconvinced that<br />

the UN could deliver, as her memoirs show: 46<br />

This meeting * also saw the beginning of an almost interminable argument<br />

between the Americans – particularly Jim Baker – and me about whether and in<br />

what form United Nations authority was needed for measures against Saddam<br />

Hussein. I felt that the Security Council Resolution which had already been<br />

passed † , combined with our ability to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter, on<br />

self defence, was sufficient. …… (M)y attitude, which had been reinforced as<br />

a result of our difficulties with the UN over the Falklands, was based on two<br />

considerations. Firstly, there was no guarantee that the wording of a resolution,<br />

which was always open to amendment, would finish up by being satisfactory. …<br />

…<br />

Second, although I am a strong believer in international law, I did not like<br />

unnecessary resort to the UN, because it suggested that sovereign states lacked<br />

the moral authority to act on their own behalf. … … The UN was a useful – for<br />

some matters vital – forum. But it was hardly the nucleus of a new world order.<br />

Encapsulated in this short passage is a summary of all the traditional doubts about the<br />

role of the UN: its inability to take resolute action, its openness to political bias rather<br />

than subjective application of law, the danger of the veto rendering it impotent, and an<br />

ideological objection to the very idea of any authority greater than that of sovereign<br />

states.<br />

Nevertheless, the gradual build up of US-led coalition forces, initially for the defence of<br />

Saudi Arabia against any further Iraqi expansionism but eventually clearly intended for<br />

the forcible removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, continued to enjoy increasing UN<br />

authority for action. Any doubt that might still have existed in some minds was finally<br />

removed by Resolution 678 of 29 Nov 1990 47 (original emphasis):<br />

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,<br />

* On Sunday 5 Aug 1990 in the Whitehouse with US President George Bush, National Security Advisor<br />

Brent Scowcroft, Vice President Dan Quayle and Secretary of State James Baker.<br />

† SCR 660. It was regarded as sufficient authority for use of force in that it determined the existence of a<br />

‘breach of international peace and security’ – generally taken as the cue for actions under Chapter VII.<br />

78

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!