diplomsko delo
Marko Železnik (Author), Matjaž Tratnik (Mentor)

Abstract

V pričujočem diplomskem delu je obravnavano vprašanje legalnosti ter legitimnosti vojaškega ali drugačnega posredovanja v konfliktu, ki se je pričel leta 2011 v Sirski arabski republiki (v nadaljevanju Sirija). V skoraj štirih letih trajanja te morije se je namreč večkrat pojavilo vprašanje, če je kakršno koli posredovanje drugih držav sploh na voljo; ali bi bilo takšno posredovanje zakonito po veljavnem mednarodnem pravu ter če ne, ali bi do njega vseeno moralo priti. Možnosti za takšno posredovanje so sicer zmeraj bile na razpolago v obliki avtorizacije Varnostnega sveta Organizacije združenih narodov (v nadaljevanju Varnostni svet), vendar od pričetka konflikta pa do danes Varnostni svet ni uspel sprejeti zavezujoče resolucije o takšnem ukrepu, saj Rusija in Kitajska vztrajno uporabljata svojo pravico do veta. Avtorizacija Varnostnega sveta pa predstavlja le eno izmed dveh izjem členu 2(4) Ustanovne listine Organizacije združenih narodov (v nadaljevanju Ustanovna listina), ki predpisuje prepoved grožnje ali uporabe sile in je mnogokrat predmet različne interpretacije. Druga izjema temu členu je "neodtujljiva" pravica do samoobrambe suverenih držav, ki je zapisana v 51. členu Ustanovne listine in tudi brez tega izrecnega zapisa obstaja v mednarodnem običajnem pravu. V okviru VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine so različne države tako že iskale povode za posredovanje na osnovi samoobrambe, vendar nobeni ni uspelo dokazati, da je pogojem za ukrepanje iz takšnih razlogov zadoščeno. Zaradi prej omenjene različne razlage člena 2(4) so nekatere države, recimo Združene države Amerike (v nadaljevanju Združene države), poskušale kot legalno predstaviti tudi oboroževanje opozicijskih skupin, kar nima prave podpore v očeh mednarodne skupnosti; ali pa so preprosto želele "kaznovati" Sirijo z arhaičnim institutom oboroženih povračilnih ukrepov, ker je ta uporabila kemično orožje na svojem civilnem prebivalstvu. Mnogi ministri, svetovalci, pravni strokovnjaki ali celo laiki pa so bili mnenja, da je v primeru takšne paralize Varnostnega sveta najbolje popolnoma zaobiti njegovo avtorizacijo, da bi se lahko rešilo človeška življenja. Tako so se pojavile zahteve – tudi širše javnosti – po humanitarni intervenciji ali podobni obliki posredovanja na humanitarnem temelju. Ponovno so tudi tukaj mnenja zelo deljena in ne obstaja enostavna ali nesporna rešitev. Še vedno se v očeh mednarodne javnosti in v okviru mednarodnega prava namreč šteje, da je posredovanje brez avtorizacije Varnostnega sveta nedopustno. To velja ne glede na primer Kosova, ki se v tej situaciji le stežka uporabi kot precedens, čeprav se tudi v primeru Sirije rado omenja koncept "nelegalnega, vendar legitimnega", ki je bil leta 1999 uporabljen kot pojasnilo za bombardiranje ciljev v Srbiji. Na tej točki ni povsem jasno, zakaj določene države niso poskušale doseči odobritve posredovanja pri drugih mednarodnih organih, kot recimo Generalni skupščini, in so se zanašale zgolj na morebitne resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ki pa nikoli niso bile sprejete. Če bi namreč Varnostni svet predložil zadevo Generalni skupščini, veto pravice tam ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti in morda bi se pojavila možnost za izhod iz mrtve točke. V vsakem primeru se po podrobni analizi zdi, da v trenutnem pozitivnem mednarodnem pravu niti ob zelo razširjeni interpretaciji člena 2(4) ne obstaja izrecna pravica do posredovanja v Siriji brez avtorizacije Varnostnega sveta ali obstoja okoliščin samoobrambe. V mednarodnem običajnem pravu pa velja, da so nekateri instituti preprosto premalo razviti ali nimajo dovolj osnove v praksi držav, da bi bili zares uporabni. Kolikor humanitarna situacija v Siriji sicer zahteva odziv mednarodne skupnosti, trenuten razvoj prava na tem področju ne ponuja jasne rešitve zunaj okvirjev, ki jih zastavlja besedilo Ustanovne listine.

Keywords

mednarodno pravo;Sirija;Kosovo;Libija;humanitarna intervencija;odgovornost zaščititi;kemično orožje;Varnostni svet OZN;člen 2(4) Ustanovne listine OZN;51. člen Ustanovne listine OZN;Uniting for Peace revolucija;diplomska dela;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [M. Železnik]
UDC: 341.3(043.2)
COBISS: 4916011 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1576
Downloads: 154
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Legality and Legitimacy of Intervention in Syria
Secondary abstract: In the following thesis we discuss the question of the legality and legitimacy of military or other forms of intervention in the conflict which began in 2011 in the Syrian Arab Republic (hereinafter referred to as Syria). In almost four years of bloodshed, numerous questions regarding this subject have arisen, including if any form of intervention by other states is even available; would such an intervention be legal according to current international law and if not, should such an intervention take place nonetheless. Options for such an intervention have always been available in the form of a United Nations Security Council (hereinafter referred to as Security Council) authorisation, but since the beginning of the conflict no binding resolution has been passed, due to Russia and China persistently vetoing every draft. But Security Council authorisation is just one of two exceptions to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as the Charter), which prohibits the threat or use of force and is often the subject of varying interpretations. The second exception to Article 2(4) is the "inalienable" right to self-defence of sovereign states, which is included in Article 51 of the Charter and also exists on its own in customary international law. Different states have already sought grounds for intervention under Chapter VII and its wording of self-defence, but none have succeeded in proving that the conditions for such an action are met. Due to the previously mentioned varying interpretations of Article 2(4), some states (for example the US) attempted to present the arming of armed opposition groups as legal, which has no support in the eyes of the international community; or they simply wanted to "punish" Syria with the archaic legal concept of armed reprisals, for its use of chemical weapons on its own civilian population. Quite a few state secretaries, consultants, legal experts or even laymen were of the opinion that in the face of such a deep Security Council paralysis it would be best, to completely circumvent its authorisation, so that human lives could be saved. And so demands were made – even by the public – for humanitarian intervention or any similar form of intervention based on humanitarian grounds. Again, views on this particular type of intervention are varied indeed and there is no simple or indisputable solution. It is still very much a fact, that in the eyes of the international community and under international law, intervention without Security Council authorisation is inadmissible. This is true regardless of Kosovo, which is not really applicable in this case, though when speaking about Syria many also like to mention the concept of "illegal yet legitimate", which was used as an explanation for bombing targets in Serbia in 1999. At this point it is not completely clear why some states have not tried to reach an approval for intervention through other international bodies, like the United Nations General Assembly (hereinafter referred to as General Assembly), and instead relied merely on potential resolutions by the Security Council, which were never passed. If, for instance, the Security Council would submit the discussion to the General Assembly, veto power would be inapplicable and therefore a chance to end the deadlock would be available. In any case, after a detailed analysis it seems that under current positive international law, even with a very broad interpretation of Article 2(4), no explicit right of intervention in Syria exists without a Security Council authorisation or the occurrence of circumstances of self-defence. And in customary international law some legal concepts are too underdeveloped or lack adequate state practice to be applicable. As much as the humanitarian situation in Syria demands a response from the international community, the current state and development of law in this field does not offer a clear solution outside the framework of the Charter.
Secondary keywords: Syria;Kosovo;Libya;humanitarian intervention;Responsibility to Protect (R2P);chemical weapons;UN Security Council;Article 2(4) of the UN Charter;Article 51 of the UN Charter;Uniting for Peace resolution;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 97 str.
ID: 8738788