CODE OF CONDUCT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REFORMATION OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

The United Nations Security Council’s (SC) intermittent failure to perform its main duty of maintaining international peace and security has led to a longstanding debate about its reform. The ongoing Syrian crisis has resulted in a significant number of casualties, and has cost the international community heavily. The SC has thus become the subject both of severe criticism and of calls to take action. The inertia that results from an insistence on the use of the veto power has stimulated politicians to develop alternative methods. In this regard, some argue that there must be a Code of Conduct for the Council in order to enable it to react in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Proponents of a Code of Conduct for the SC have naturally directed their attention to the veto power, the main suggestion being that it must be restricted in these extreme circumstances. Three main initiatives have consequently been developed and have received a considerable degree of support from states. Yet their deficiencies, including a specific procedural trigger and a process by which an alternative course of action could be initiated should one or more of the permanent five Council members (P5) refuse to refrain from using their veto power, have largely been overlooked. The current proposal aims to examine these initiatives and make suggestions to remedy these shortcomings. It first outlines previous efforts to reform the Council, then examines the suggested Code of Conduct, and finally proposes a new Code of Conduct and explains why a procedural trigger and a backup procedure must be provided. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there is no academic work on the Code of Conduct for the Council; there are only a few comments by politicians. This study will therefore make a contribution to the literature.

BM GÜVENLİK KONSEYİ’NİN REFORM EDİLMESİNE ALTERNATİF OLARAK DAVRANIŞ KODU

Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin uluslararası barışı ve güvenliği koruma görevini yerine getirmede bazen başarısız olmasından dolayı, bu yapının reform edilmesi ile ilgili uzun tartışmalar yapılmıştır. Devam etmekte olan Suriye krizi çok ciddi kayıplara neden olmuştur. Bu krizin uluslararası topluma da çok büyük maliyeti olmuştur. Bu yüzden, Konsey’in mevcut yapısı için hem ciddi eleştiriler hem de Suriye krizi için harekete geçme çağrıları yapılmıştır. Konsey’in ısrarlı veto gücünün kullanımından dolayı devam etmekte olan krizle ilgili harekete geçmemesinden dolayı, bilim adamlarını ve politikacıları alternatif yöntemler geliştirmeye sevk etmiştir. Bu bağlamda, bazıları Konsey için ‘Davranış Kodu’ olması gerektiğini savunmuştur ki bu kod soykırım, insanlığa karşı işlenen suçlar ve savaş suçları durumlarında Konsey’in hareket etmesini sağlayacak.Davranış Kodu savunucuları doğal olarak dikkatlerini veto yetkisine çevirmişler ve bu yetkinin soykırım, insanlığa karşı işlenen suçlar ve savaş suçları durumlarında sınırlandırılması gerektiğini savunmuşlardır. Bu bağlamda, üç tane önemli teklif geliştirilmiş ve kayda değer destek görmüşlerdir. Bununla birlikte, bu geliştirilen üç önemli önerilerle ilgili bazı eksiklikler söz konusudur; öyle ki, bu önerilerin, ‘harekete geçirecek usul’ ve konseyin bazı daimi üyelerinin veto yetkisini sınırlandırmayı reddetmesi durumunda nasıl bir ‘alternatif yol’ izlenecek gibi hususları gözden kaçırdıkları tespit edilmiştir. Bu makalenin amacı bu üç önemli öneriyi değerlendirmek ve eksiklikleriyle ilgili çözümler sunmaktır. İlk önce Konsey ile ilgili daha önceki reform çalışmalarının arka planı sunulmuş, sonra daha önce önerilmiş olan Davranış Kodları incelenmiş, en son olarak neden ‘harekete geçirecek usul’ ve ‘alternatif yol’ özelliklerinin gerekli olduğu açıklanarak yeni bir Davranış Kodu önerilmiştir. Yazarın bilgisine göre, bu konuda, Davranış Kodu ile ilgili bazı politikacıların görüşleri dışında herhangi bir akademik çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu mevcut çalışmanın o nedenle literatüre bir katkı yapacağı düşünülmektedir.

PDF

___

ACT Group (2013), “Better Working Methods for today’s UN Security Council”,http://www.centerforunreform.org/sites/default/files/Invitation%20Launch%20ACT%20-%202%20May%202013%20-%20Civil%20society.pdf (20.09.2016).

Albright, Madeleine K. and William S. Cohen. (2008), “Genocide Prevention Task Force (GPTF): Providing a Blueprint for U.S. Policymakers”, https://www.usip.org/publications/genocide-prevention-task-force (22/09/2016).

Arı, Tayyar (2013), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri: Çatışma, Hegemonya, İşbirliği (Bursa: MKM).

Barker, J. Craig (2013), “The Responsibility to Protect: Lessons from Libya and Syria”, Robert P. Barnidge (Ed.), The Liberal Way of War: Legal Perspectives, (New York: Routledge): 63-85.

Bell, David V.J. (2005), “Voluntary Codes and New Sustainability Paradigm”, Wesley Cragg (Ed.), Ethics Codes, Corporations, and the Challenge of Globalization, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 321.

Blatter, Ariela (2014), “The Responsibility Not to Veto: A Way Forward”, http://globalsolutions.org/files/public/documents/RN2V_White_Paper_CGS.pdf (24.11.2016).

Bogdandy, Armin von (2008), “Codes of Conduct and the Legitimacy of International Law”, Rudiger Wolfrum and Volker Röben (Eds.), Legitimacy in International Law, (Berlin: Springer): 299.

Bredvold, Louis I. and Ralph G. Ross (1960), The philosophy of Edmund Burke (The University of Michigan).

Center for UN Reform (2012), “S5 Reform Draft Resolution” http://www.centerforunreform.org/sites/default/files/S5%20Reform%20draft%20resolution.pdf (19.09.2016).

Cox, Brian (2009), “United Nations Security Council Reform: Collected Proposals and Possible Consequence”, South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business, 6 (1): 89-128.

Cragg, Wesley (2004), “Multinational Corporation, Globalisation, and the Challenge of Self-Regulation”, John J. Kirton and Michael J. Trebilcock (Eds.), Hard Choices, Soft Law: Voluntary Standards in Global Trade, Environment and Social Governance (New York: Routledge).

Fabius, Laurent (2013), “A Call for Self-Restraint at the U.N.”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-call-for-self-restraint-at-the-un.html (07/10/2016).

Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect (2016), “UN Security Council Code of Conduct”, http://www.globalr2p.org/our_work/un_security_council_code_of_conduct (17.09.2016).

Grieco, Joseph M. (1988), “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism”, International Organization, 42 (3): 485-507.

Henkin, Lois (1990), “Law and Politics in International Relations: State and Human Values”, Journal of International Affairs, 44: 183-208.

Human Rights Watch (2016), “Uniting for Peace in Syria: Global Civil Society Appeal to UN Member States”, https://hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/uniting-peace-syria-global-civil-society-appeal-un-member-states (02.01.2017).

ICISS (2001), The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Canada: International Development Research Centre).

Keller, Helen (2008), “Codes of Conduct and their Implementation: the Question of Legitimacy”, Rudiger Wolfrum and Volker Roeben (Eds.), Legitimacy in International Law (Berlin: Springer).

Kelly, Michael J. (2000), “U.N. Security Counsel Membership: A New Proposal for a Twenty-First Century Council”, Seton Hall Law Review, 31: 319-399.

Kelsen, Hans (1945), “The Old and the New League: The Covenant and the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals”, AJIL, 39: 45-83.

Keohane, Robert O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Economy (New Jersey: Princeton University).

Ki-moon, Ban (2009), Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (New York: United Nations).

Odgaard, Liselotte (2013), “Peaceful Coexistence Strategy and China's Diplomatic Power”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 6 (3): 1-40.

Shelton, Dinah L. (2003), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System (OUP).

The Elders (2014), “A UN Fit for Purpose”, http://www.theelders.org/un-fit-purpose (27.09.2016).

Therien, Jean-Philippe and Madeleine Belanger-Dumontier (2009), “The United Nations and Global Democracy: From Discourse to Deeds”, Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 355–377.

UNA-UK (2016), “UN Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect: Voluntary Restraint of the Veto in Situations of Mass Atrocity”, http://una.org.uk/sites/default/files/Briefing%20-%20Veto%20code%20of%20conduct.pdf (25.09.2016)

Winkelmann, Ingo (1997), “Bringing the Security Council into New Era: Recent Developments in the Discussion on the Reform of the Security Council”, Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law, 1: 35-90.

Woolsey, L. H. (1951), “The Uniting for Peace Resolution of the United Nations”, AJIL, 45: 129-137.

Zacher, Mark W. and Richard A. Matthew (1995), “Liberal International Theory-Common Threads, Divergent Strands”, Charles W. Kegley (Ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York, Wadsworth Publishing).