Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Iraq To Be Removed From Chapter VII

Recommended Posts

I know this is long but, contains a multitude of information about Chapter VI ( by the way, I did not know existed until todaysmile.gif) So, since Chapter Vi may affect our investment here's the deal.

Chapter VI - Pacific Settlement of Disputes


Chapter VI

Article 33

  • The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  • The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

[edit]Article 34

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

[edit]Article 35

  • Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
  • A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
  • The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

[edit]Article 36

  • The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
  • The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
  • In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

[edit]Article 37

  • Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

  • If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate

[edit]Article 38

Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

There is a general agreement among legal scholars outside the organization that resolutions made under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) are not legally binding.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] One argument is that since they have no enforcement mechanism, except self-help, they may not be legally binding.[31] Some States give constitutional or special legal status to the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions. In such cases non-recognition regimes or other sanctions can be implemented under the provisions of the laws of the individual member states.[32]

The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs was established because "Records of the cumulating practice of international organizations may be regarded as evidence of customary international law with reference to States' relations to the organizations."[33] The repertory cites the remarks made by the representative of Israel, Mr Eban, regarding a Chapter VI resolution. He maintained that the Security Council's resolution of 1 September 1951 possessed, within the meaning of Article 25, a compelling force beyond that pertaining to any resolution of any other organ of the United Nations, in his view the importance of the resolution had to be envisaged in the light of Article 25, under which the decisions of the Council on matters affecting international peace and security assumed an obligatory character for all Member States. The Egyptian representative disagreed.[34]

Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali related that during a press conference his remarks about a "non-binding" resolution started a dispute. His assistant released a hasty clarification, which only made the situation worse. It said that the Secretary had only meant to say that Chapter VI contains no means of insuring compliance and that resolutions adopted under its terms are not enforceable. When the Secretary finally submitted the question to the UN Legal Advisor, the response was a long memo the bottom line of which read, in capital letters: "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE." The Secretary said, "I got the message."[35]

Prof. Jared Schott explains that "Though certainly possessing judicial language, without the legally binding force of Chapter VII, such declarations were at worst political and at best advisory".[36]

In 1971, a majority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) members in the Namibia advisory opinion held that the resolution contained legal declarations that were made while the Council was acting on behalf of the members in accordance with Article 24. The Court also said that an interpretation of the charter that limits the domain of binding decision only to those taken under Chapter VII would render Article 25 "superfluous, since this [binding] effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter", and that the "language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect".[37] The ICJ judgment has been criticized by Erika De Wet and others.[38] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding. Her reasoning, in part states:

Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterized by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the
opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression.

Others disagree with this interpretation. Professor Stephen Zunes asserts that "[t]his does not mean that resolutions under Chapter VI are merely advisory, however. These are still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they do not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of military force".[40] Former President of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins argues that the location of Article 25, outside of Chapter VI and VII and with no reference to either, suggests its application is not limited to Chapter VII decisions.[41] She asserts that the Travaux préparatoires to the UN Charter "provide some evidence that Article 25 was not intended to be limited to Chapter VII, or inapplicable to Chapter VI."[42] She argues that early state practice into what resolutions UN members considered binding has been somewhat ambiguous, but seems to "rely not upon whether they are to be regarded as "Chapter VI or "Chapter VII" resolutions [...] but upon whether the parties intended them to be "decisions" or "recommendations" ... One is left with the view that in certain limited, and perhaps rare, cases a binding decision may be taken under Chapter VI".[43] She supports the view of the ICJ that "clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis ... [and] that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole".[44]

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

and another

United States: We strongly support the withdrawal of Iraq from Chapter VII

10/31/2012 12:00 am

Beecroft: No plans to bring troops and will provide Baghdad with sophisticated weapons

BAGHDAD - morning

expressed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad for interaction strongly with the Iraqi government in order to exit from Chapter VII, noting it worked great behind the scenes between Iraq and Kuwait in order to encourage settlement in this area . said U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Stephen Beecroft told the "Center Brief for the Iraqi Media Network," on the sidelines of a meeting with a number of media that "Iraq and Kuwait countries neighbors, and we want that Eetmtaa relationship better with each other," noting that the Washington Office with the United Nations works significantly to end all requirements related to Chapter VII.

and expressed hope that is resolved this issue and change the situation for the better as soon as possible through the transition of Iraq from Chapter VII-VI, alluding to say "We are working on support as much as possible when you take the Iraqi side steps that encourages other countries to interact in this area. "

Beecroft counting the relationship between Iraq and the United States are of utmost importance, as the United States' support him continuously for the success of the principle of democracy it to be a constructive role in the region, noting that the United States has seen positive steps in This direction was hosted by the Arab summit and the meeting of 5 +1 your nuclear program.

said the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, said the United States will continue to interact with Iraq as widely as possible, and give him the expertise and military equipment and training security forces to contribute to the development, as well as encouraging major companies U.S. investment in Iraq, especially in the field of energy. announced the existence of joint committees between the two countries to activate the strategic framework agreement, where she will meet to discuss the energy situation and things diplomacy, justice and the judiciary, noting that this cooperation is to assert the sovereignty of Iraq.

Beecroft categorically denied the existence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, as reported by some media, describing it as rumors and stories are false, in addition to the absence of plans to bring these soldiers to be in Iraq.

described Beecroft flights bound from Iran to Syria via Iraq as "concern us deeply," and expressed his happiness that Iraq began these aircraft inspection steps to make sure no shipping weapons to Syria, noting that this beginning, and we must inflict a sequential process of follow-ups or new inspection system.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very good article, thanks so much for bringing it over. Yes I am sure there is more than will ever know. Iraq being under chapter 7 is a great way to keep them under the thumb for the US. It just does not make sense. :mellow:

Agree...."but what you see may not be real and what is real, u may not see." Just a quote.... :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article said " There audits every six months and we hope that turns Chapter VII to Chapter VI ", I get confused and have questions " what are the differences between Chapter VII and Chapter VI?Does this mean that If, I say if Iraq can be removed from Chapter VII, then, does Iraq has to be removed from Chapter VI, too? Are there any additional chapters ( like, chapter V, IV, III, II, I or else if any ) that Iraq need to be removed from? Anyway, How many chapters Does Iraq really really need to be removed from? Come on Folks help us out here.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Washington needs money and lots of it!...IMO

Yep. It would be exciting for this to happen before the election. It would help Obama to secure his position as a leader (he certainly needs help) and the economy would be stimulated before the end of the year. That would be wonderful. The GOP would inherit an economy beginning to recover rather than decline. President Romney will know what to do with the money. . .

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

Collective Insecurity, Harvard International Review,"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council's powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. These resolutions have generally been operative only with the consent of all parties involved. Traditionally, the Chapter has not been interpreted to support collective intervention by member states in the affairs of another member state"

2.^ Possible Extension of the UN Mandate for Iraq: Options, 'The basic difference between Chapters VI and VII is that under Chapter VII, the Council may impose measures on states that have obligatory legal force and therefore need not depend on the consent of the states involved. To do this, the Council must determine that the situation constitutes a threat or breach of the peace. In contrast, measures under Chapter VI do not have the same force, and military missions under Chapter VI would rest on consent by the state in question'

Edited by dontlop
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some good news. Iraq to be removed from Chapter VII and being led there by the US! This is great news! And they're already talking about rearming Iraq. Even better news. This means true sovereignty for Iraq. After almost 23 years, many more if you include Saddam's reign, they'll be a member of the world again. A fledgling democracy in a part of the world that doesn't know the meaning!

Zig, don't worry about Iran. Their days of terrorizing the world are quickly coming to an end. What the biting financial measures won't take care of, the Iranian people will in due course. The Ayatollah's days are numbered!

As for Maliki, he must act and talk tough to keep all the factions in their places. To seem weak will only undermine him. The majority of Iraqi's voted for his coalition parties and they will again. He will be the man to see Iraq through to it's freedom and prosperity. It's a little bit like what Ataturk did in Turkey in the 30's. Don't believe me? Read some "boots on the ground" accounts for yourselves.

Anyways, enough for now. We have real progress happening and hopefully more good news to follow in the coming days and weeks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.