1. Conservative Approach: The conservative view considers the existing Charter "practically untouchable" and believes in improving "collective security" as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include: US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
2. Secretary-General's Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of 'collective security' as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed 'peace enforcement units' under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of 'preventive diplomacy'. The report candidly recognized the Security Council's incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
Radical Approach: The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter's collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
* Establishing an Economic Security Council
* Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
* Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
* Developing a new global security system (e.g., regional models like CSCE/CSCM).
* The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook: The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter's amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political, opposing the defence of democracy and human rights against nationalism and fascism. (408 words)
(Summary of the article titled “The UN as an organisation. A critique of its functioning” by Maurice Bertrand, published in 6 EJIL (1995) pp-349-359)
UN Reform Divergence: Conservative Security Views
This question asks us to identify a primary disagreement between the United States' conservative approach and the Secretary-General's conservative approach concerning security matters within the United Nations (UN), based on the provided text summary.
Examining Conservative Positions on UN Security
The document distinguishes between conservative and radical approaches to UN reform. Both the US and the Secretary-General's views discussed here fall under the conservative approach, implying they aim to work within the existing UN Charter structure rather than proposing a complete overhaul.
US Conservative Stance on Security
- The US prioritizes its national interests in its approach to UN security issues.
- It supports administrative improvements and better management within the UN.
- Regarding the Security Council, the US favors enlargement, particularly to include countries like Germany and Japan, mainly to help finance peace-keeping operations.
- The US also seeks to integrate the UN with regional security organizations, such as NATO, for peace enforcement.
- A key point is that the US is described as reluctant to allow the full application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and views collective security in a restrictive manner. This suggests a preference for a limited scope in UN enforcement actions.
Secretary-General's Conservative Stance on Security
The Secretary-General (Boutros Ghali) presented a more expansive vision for the UN's security role:
- He advocated for the full implementation of 'collective security' as originally conceived in 1945.
- This included utilizing established Charter mechanisms like the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and securing agreements with member states (Article 43) to provide armed forces for UN operations.
- He also proposed the development of 'peace enforcement units' under the direct command of the Secretary-General.
- Additionally, he supported an expanded use of 'preventive diplomacy' as a tool to maintain peace.
Identifying the Core Disagreement
The main difference between these two conservative perspectives lies in their willingness to empower and fully utilize the UN's collective security framework:
- The Secretary-General's push for "full implementation of 'collective security'" indicates a desire for a more robust and proactive UN security apparatus, capable of decisive action.
- In contrast, the US position, characterized by its restrictive view of collective security and reluctance regarding the full application of Chapter VII, suggests a preference for a more limited, interest-driven role for the UN in security enforcement and potentially a restricted approach to peace-keeping.
Evaluating the Options
Let's analyze why the correct option precisely captures this divergence:
- Option 2: "The Secretary-General advocates for the full implementation of 'collective security', while the US restricts its participation in peace-keeping." This option accurately reflects the fundamental difference. The SG's call for comprehensive application of collective security stands in direct contrast to the US's restrictive interpretation and its reluctance concerning the full scope of Chapter VII, which directly impacts the UN's capacity for peace-keeping and security enforcement.
Here's why the other options are less accurate or unsupported by the text:
- Option 1: While the Secretary-General proposed 'peace enforcement units', the text does not explicitly state whether the US supports or opposes them, making this an unconfirmed point of divergence based on the provided summary.
- Option 3: The summary confirms the Secretary-General's support for wider 'preventive diplomacy'. However, it does not mention the US viewing it as an illusion.
- Option 4: The text clearly states that the US favors enlarging the Security Council, not opposes it. Therefore, this option presents an incorrect characterization of the US position.
Therefore, the most significant point of divergence identified in the text regarding security matters is the contrasting emphasis on the scope and implementation of 'collective security' and related enforcement mechanisms between the US and the Secretary-General.
Similar Questions
- The author's view of Hohfeld's contribution to legal scholarship can best be described as:
- The phrase "literal inaccuracy in its every phrase" is used by the author to critique the Declaration's statement, suggesting a conflict between its rhetorical power and its:
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- The debate within the International Law Commission regarding the creation of an international judicial organ (Part IV) centered on the following contrasting positions:
- Based on the passage, the primary problem the author identifies with the current discourse surrounding "rights" is the:
- The International Law Commission (ILC) concluded that its task, as directed by General Assembly resolution 177 (II), was primarily:
- Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles concerning superior orders, differs from Article 8 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal by:
- The Tribunal, in its judgment, was constrained from making a general declaration that the acts of persecution and murder committed in Germany before 1939 were "crimes against humanity" primarily because:
- The author attributes the growing public frustration with the UN primarily to which pair of continuous failures?
- According to the critique's conclusion, the immediate, insurmountable barrier preventing the implementation of any reform, major or minor, is:
Important Questions from Non Grammar
- The author's view of Hohfeld's contribution to legal scholarship can best be described as:
- The phrase "literal inaccuracy in its every phrase" is used by the author to critique the Declaration's statement, suggesting a conflict between its rhetorical power and its:
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- The debate within the International Law Commission regarding the creation of an international judicial organ (Part IV) centered on the following contrasting positions:
- Based on the passage, the primary problem the author identifies with the current discourse surrounding "rights" is the:
