Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://repository.ukim.mk/handle/20.500.12188/22
Browse
5 results
Search Results
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Non-UN Sanctions and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’: Legality, Legitimacy and their Significance for R2P(University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, 2023-05)Stojkovski, LjupchoThe Russian aggression on Ukraine has been accompanied by two things – the ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council regarding this war, and the enormous amount of non-UN sanctions against Russia for its violation of international law. When it comes to the Responsibility to protect (R2P), sanctions are part of its third Pillar since “collective action” in the name of R2P is a broad term that is not limited only to military intervention but can include other measures with or without the use of force. Under the accepted R2P version of 2005, however, collective action should be undertaken by the UN Security Council only. What remains unanswered is what should the international community’s response be under Pillar 3 in cases when the UN Security Council is ineffective because it is passive or blocked, and especially when one of the perpetrators of R2P crime(s) is a permanent member of the Council, like there are indications today, for example, with Russia’s war on Ukraine or with China’s treatment of its Uyghur population. If the use of force is not an option in these situations because of prudent reasons, are sanctions adopted outside of the UN (Security Council) warranted and sufficient under the R2P norm? What does the answer to this question, in turn, say about R2P’s potential (especially regarding Pillar 3) as a norm? The paper will deal with the present questions and will argue that non-UN sanctions are a legitimate R2P response that should be undertaken by the international community on a case-by-case basis when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility. On the other hand, there is no easy answer when it comes to the sanctions’ sufficiency and their effects on R2P, and these aspects will depend and should be assessed in accordance with numerous situational factors. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Stuck again? Does the ‘New Cold War’ Impact the Functioning of the UN Security Council?(HESTIA, 2024-01)Stojkovski, LjupchoThe “new Cold War”, which we are now allegedly living through, is not an exact term in international relations. Some observers use it to refer to the renewed tension and animosity between the USA and Russia. Others talk of the looming Cold War-like rivalry between the USA and China, while for many, the concept encompasses the relations between all three major powers. Regardless of these differences of opinion, what is certain is that all three countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council (P3), and if we are indeed living through a second Cold War, this could affect the functioning of the Council as well, which is the international community’s authority for peace and security. During the ‘first’ Cold War, the Security Council was generally dormant and/or blocked by the vetoes of the permanent members, so it is worth investigating whether a similar passiveness and/or ineffectiveness could be expected during the new Cold War. In this paper, it will be argued that while there has been an increased use of vetoes by Russia and China in recent years, a complete paralysis of the Council, like in the past, is not to be expected. Due to the different socio-economic and normative context in which the new Cold War is occurring and in which the Security Council operates, as well as the shared and individual interests that the P3 have in keeping the Council operative, this institution will continue to be functional for most situations that it deals with. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Some Perspectives on the UN Security Council Reform Proposals(Faculty of Law Iustinianus Primus Skopje, 2022)Stojkovski, LjupchoThe calls for reform of the UN Security Council, which are as old as the organization itself, have been in the international spotlight again with the wars in Syria and Ukraine and the vetoes that Russia (and China) used to block any measure regarding them. In this paper, I will briefly present and critically discuss the three groups of proposals that are mostly given for reforming the Council: the enlargement proposals, the proposals for reforms of the working methods of the Council, and the proposals for reforms of the veto. All of these proposals have some merit (albeit different) and try to address some deficiency in the functioning or design of the Council. Therefore, despite the low likelihood of success, all of these reform proposals should be pursued because they (at the very least) serve as a tool for putting pressure on the permanent members to uphold their responsibilities that to the UN and the international community as a whole. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The Importance of the 'Responsibility not to Veto' Debate(University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, 2017)Stojkovski, LjupchoThe six year war in Syria which has taken over 400.000 lives, led to the displacement of more than 11 million persons and has included war crimes and crimes against humanity, poses a serious challenge for R2P. One of the main reasons for inaction in this conflict is the blockade of the Security Council – as permanent members Russia and China have used their vetoes several times (Russia 6, China 5) to block proposed draft resolutions. The blockade has reinvigorated the appeals for a restrain in the use of the veto by the Permanent Members. This paper examines the Responsibility not to Veto (RN2V) idea – the idea to restraint the veto in the four cases susceptible to R2P. It briefly explores the idea’s history and then focuses on the two latest initiatives – the French proposal and the ACT’s Code of conduct. An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of these proposals is being conducted, after which an assessment of their chances of success takes place. The paper concludes that similarly to other attempts to reform the UN Security Council, these initiatives do not have a real chance of succeeding any time soon. Nevertheless, the paper offers three reasons why the debate surrounding these proposals is significant and hence should continue. First, the debates indicate an alternative approach in cases when the Security Council is blocked and therefore could improve the issue of right authority for R2P. Second, the wide support that these initiatives enjoy, indicates that the 2005 R2P formula – preparedness for a case-by-case reaction in situations of manifest failure – is not a satisfactory outcome for the international community. Thus, they signal a search for a new understanding of Pillar 3 of R2P. Finally, they show the need for further development and upgrade of ‘R2P-lite’. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Constructivist aspects of the UN Security Council’s permanent members’ conduct: the case of the USA(Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Republic of North Macedonia Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis”, Skopje, 2019-06)Stojkovski, LjupchoThe UN Security Council is an institution that is in the spotlight of world’s attention every time there is an armed conflict. This is especially the case when the Security Council is not fulfilling its responsibility to maintain international peace due to a lack of political will or the use of the veto by a permanent five (P5) member state. Therefore, the conduct of the P5 in the Security Council has a great impact on the functioning of the Council as an institution. However, even though all P5 have an equal veto power, this does not imply that all of them act identically (or in a similar manner) within and towards the Security Council. To the contrary. There are major differences among them, and (sometimes) in the behavior of a single member state throughout the years. For instance, after the end of the Cold War, the United Kingdom and France – unlike the other three permanent member states – have not used their right to veto at all. On the other hand, Russia, which just like the United Kingdom and France, has had a decrease in its power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is the permanent member that has used the veto most frequently since the Cold War. In the case of the USA, there is a significant decrease in the use of veto after the end of the Cold War, although their military (and until recently, their economic) power has been stable and unsurpassable in the near future. There are similar differences among the P5 with regards to the idea of limitating the veto in situations of mass atrocities – an initiative known as the ‘Responsibility not to veto’. In order to understand these differences, one should examine the non-material factors, i.e. the ideas, values and identities of these states, beside the material factors and the power relations. The reason for this, following the constructivist approach in international relations (IR) theory, is that the material resources are not an independent factor, but gain importance only through the ideas that make them up. Along this line, the institutions where states are members do not only reflect their power but also their ideas, perspectives and perceptions about themselves, about the institutions that they are part of, and about how these entities, and international politics in general, (ought to) function. Therefore, it is necessary to take into consideration the non-material factors regarding the Security Council, i.e. the ‘constructivist aspects’ of the conduct – the ideas, the values, the identities, the language – of the actors that consist this body, especially the permanent five. In this paper I analyze the constructivist aspects of the conduct of one permanent member of the UN Security Council – the United States. The USA supports and sometimes works through the Security Council, but not by all means – if this body is an obstacle to its plans, it may also bypass it. This attitude of the USA towards and within the Security Council, from material perspective, is closely related to the enormous military and economic power it has globally. The non-material factors that explain this behavior include the roles of creator-reformer and custodian of the international order played by the USA, their self-perception of exceptionality, as well as their national political considerations.