08 September 2013
Article 5 Threat
Can the members of the UN define any action by another member state as a threat to themselves that justifies its being expelled from the organization and/or deprived of its rights under the Charter under its Article 5? That is what the U.S. and France seem to be claiming in the matter of Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons to kill supporters of its civil war opponents.
Syria is one of five states that have not signed the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and apparently its government believes it is not obligated to observe the Convention’s prohibitions. Although the overwhelming majority of countries have ratified the Convention, can any of them claim that, therefore, there is an international legal “norm” that authorizes them to enforce the Convention’s provisions even within states that are not members?
Perhaps an international coalition of states, whether acting organizationally as the UN, NATO or otherwise, could argue that it has the standing to do so. But if any of them draws a red line limiting the permitted actions of a nonconforming state and so set themselves up as the world’s policemen, they have misdirected the focus of their energies. They should instead seek to bring about a consensus of the largest organization of conforming states that enforcement action is needed and authorized by a coalition of the willing, even if by a few states acting on their behalf.
No state wisely draws unilateral red lines without conceding the charge that it has accepted the distrust of other countries when their own policies can be deemed a violation of the “policeman’s” self-regard. Israel has made that choice with regard to its Arab neighbors. It is not certain that Americans wish their government to make a similar choice when it comes to near criminal misbehavior by a miscreant regime that does not directly threaten harm to the security of the vast majority of them.
Can the members of the UN define any action by another member state as a threat to themselves that justifies its being expelled from the organization and/or deprived of its rights under the Charter under its Article 5? That is what the U.S. and France seem to be claiming in the matter of Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons to kill supporters of its civil war opponents.
Syria is one of five states that have not signed the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and apparently its government believes it is not obligated to observe the Convention’s prohibitions. Although the overwhelming majority of countries have ratified the Convention, can any of them claim that, therefore, there is an international legal “norm” that authorizes them to enforce the Convention’s provisions even within states that are not members?
Perhaps an international coalition of states, whether acting organizationally as the UN, NATO or otherwise, could argue that it has the standing to do so. But if any of them draws a red line limiting the permitted actions of a nonconforming state and so set themselves up as the world’s policemen, they have misdirected the focus of their energies. They should instead seek to bring about a consensus of the largest organization of conforming states that enforcement action is needed and authorized by a coalition of the willing, even if by a few states acting on their behalf.
No state wisely draws unilateral red lines without conceding the charge that it has accepted the distrust of other countries when their own policies can be deemed a violation of the “policeman’s” self-regard. Israel has made that choice with regard to its Arab neighbors. It is not certain that Americans wish their government to make a similar choice when it comes to near criminal misbehavior by a miscreant regime that does not directly threaten harm to the security of the vast majority of them.
