How does the USA act internationally? Is the US sworn to act in step with the UN? Do they need the UN’s approval to delcare war, for example? Let’s look at the Gulf War, for example. Did the US have to go before the UN to ask for permission to attack?
The UN does not have any power. They are merely a well organized club for diplomats.
The US does pretty much what it wants. Of course it’s generally a good idea to honor treaties and obligations and stuff that we have.
In the Gulf War, the US was not attacked and AFAIK no treaties to cover it, so we had no basis for responding. The US then got the UN to authorize the “war”.
In this case the US is taking the position that the US was attacked and is defending itself.
And as a way of showing good form, notified the UN that we were going to take action caling attention to how the UN Charter itself recognizes nations have the right to defend themselves.
The UN does NOT have authority to impose on its members a veto on exercise of basic sovereign rights. No UN member is “sworn” to anything. All you need is to express commitment to working for peace.
Now, sovereign nations may enter Treaties by which they commit one another to refrain from exercising those rights unfetteredly by doing or or not doing certain things (go to war if Belgium’s attacked, not test nukes in the atmosphere, not poach on the other fellows’ waters, hand over accused war criminals).
Article 51 of the United Nations charter specifically states that nations have the right to defend themselves. The current war can certainly be construed as self-defense.
Contrary to what a lot of columnists have written, the notion of going to war against a person or non-governmental terrorist organization isn’t “illegal.” The UN Charter does not specify that self-defense applies only to defending oneself against another state.
The charter, does, however, state that self-defense should only be taken until such time as the U.N. Security Council does something about it. That said, there are three things to bear in mind;
The Security Council usually does nothing at all or does something meaningless and stupid, and it seems quite silly, to me, to say that a country should not defend itself as a result of the Security Council’s idiocy.
The Charter isn’t really clear on whether ALL military actions must eventually meet with Security Council approval, or if there’s a time frame in which the Security Council must approve military action. It’s not clear on whether inaction on the Security Council’s part means you can’t do anything, or CAN do anything.
It’s very important to note that the Security Council makes determinations of military policy just on behalf of the United Nations. (Anti-war commentators never seem to understand this.) They do not make such determinations on behalf of all states, or all people, or civilization as a whole; they make them just for U.N. purposes. Legally, the USA or any other state is entitled to the use of force in self-defense no matter what, subject to the commonly understood laws of war; whether or not it’s done under the auspices of the U.N. is another matter.
In general, the Charter of the U.N. is deliberately vague. It doesn’t say “All UN members renounce war forever.”
And remember the Big Five veto power… for the UNSC to actually approve any sort of effective action for or against any member state, the USA, France, the UK, Russia AND China have to at least acquiesce to it. (Thus the usual “meaningless or stupid” resolution calling on all parties to “please, kids, play nice!”)