UNIVERSALISM V. REGIONALISM

Question 1

Chapter VIII UNCH

Answer 1

Art 52 UNCH : doesn’t prohibit regional organisations. There are considered as tool for the maintain of peace/security on which UNSC can rely (art 53). BUT regional organisations can do so ONLY under the authority of the UNSC = sort of delegation.

Question 2

The rising of regional organisations

Answer 2

• NATO and the UN : art 5 of the North Atlantic TREATY, 1949 : provides that if one member state is subjected to an armed attack, all shall commit to assist them in the exercice of self defence. BUT only until the UNSC takes actions. So NETO can intervene under this article but it did also with the authorisation of the UNSC to use force under chapter VII.
• The African Union : art 4 Of the Charter opens the doors to another kind of the use of force = possibility to intervene in case of mass crime. This is due to the complete paralysis of the UNSC during the genocide in Rwanda. BUT there is a risk of dilution of the prohibition of the use of force because IT IS an expansion to the right to use it, a departure from the authorisation of the UNSC (≠ NATO). -> the prohibition of the use of force is threatened by the development of regional organisations s provisions.

Question 3

International organisations : «super states» ?

Answer 3

IO are legal persons (Bernadotte advisory opinion) BUT there are not States and certainly not supe states. This applies to even the more developed one as the EU. IO are not competitors to states but devices. Even if there is some kind of separation of powers within the UN (UNGA = legislative ; UNSC = executive ; ICJ = judicial), ART 2§7 prevents the UN from evolving toward a State figure nor intervene in matters which are under the domestic jurisdiction of the states members.

What about the European Union ? It sure has a constitutional character (Lisbonne treaty is close to a constitution) BUT it is in fact far from being a State mostly because of the principe of conferral (art 4 + 5 Lisbonne treaty) : the EU only has the powers and functions that are provided to it by states. Ex : no consensus about the definition of rape because states considered that criminal matters dont fall under the EU competence but should remain under the state jurisdiction (french argument).

-> even though IO tried to expand their field o competences, and will continue to do so, states retain control over some matters (immigration, criminality..). BUT they are more and more convinced that they can’t exercice their competences without IO, they need them to be efficient. (Monetary field for instance).

There are Interactions between different International organisations. We tend to look at them in isolation but we should look at them as a phenomenon (general POV).
-> dialogue between International organisations, reference by one court to the decision of other court. It’s the way it goes and the way it will probably going to evolve. We need International organisations.