The Limits of Omnipotence: Correspondence with the United Nations Charter in Four Cases of Coercive Action by the Security Council

The purpose of the thesis is to assess whether or not the Security Council in four cases in the beginning of the nineties violated the UN Charter in its Chapter VII resolutions. In the theoretical chapter preceding the case study, limits on the Council's Chapter VII competence are identified in Articles 24, 1, 2 and 39. Important terms and sentences, such as ''threat to the peace'' and ''sovereign equality'', are then analysed, since they are parts of the power-limiting Articles. It is shown that the latter term is very problematic, and that the rest of the Charter does not accord with it. Furthermore, an intimate link between the terms legality and legitimacy is assessed, the former being based on the latter. It is also concluded that Member States of the UN do not have to obey illegal Chapter VII resolutions. Then, the case study begins with an examination of the Gulf Crisis in 1990-1991. This is followed by three more cases, namely the decision in the year 1992 on sanctions against Libya, the War-Crime Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993, and, finally, the intervention on Haiti in 1993-1994. Violations of the UN Charter are assessed in the first two cases, but not in the other two. In the Gulf War, the complete delegation of competence to an unidentified coalition is considered as a breach against the Charter. In the Libyan case, the demand on extradition of two Libyan citizens combined with mandatory sanctions is found to be completely illegal. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Haiti intervention are unusual measures, but are still seen as lawful