The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force. Is this an Essay

The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force. Is this an absolute prohibition Discuss and critically evaluate the limi - Essay Example Before acting so, the states have considered that the terrorists pose international security threats to the world as a whole. Therefore they expect cooperation from the international community to help them fight terrorists2. The clause in the charter that condemns the use of force is therefore undermined and not adhered. However there many challenge the UN body is experiencing so many challenges that keeping to the clauses of the charter. The charter was initiated to ensure disarmation and proliferation. Even though the measures have been put to into writing but no countries are adhering to them. This paper finds out whether the UN charter has a provision that allow countries to respond to attacks from terror groups is not clear. After the attacks on the United States, famously known as the â€Å"September 11 2001 attacks† or simply 9/11 attacks the UN Security Council immediately changes the rules in the next day3. The council recognised â€Å"the inherent right of individua l and collective self-defence as provided in the charter. This came to be known as the â€Å"Security Council resolution 1368 (2001). The changes led to the reaffirmation on the state defence. The limits of use of force had been passed. Countries learn a very good lesson from the events in the United States and they soon started working on weapons to protect themselves. The only question that needs to be answered is the â€Å"are the countries really going to stick the original provisions in the charter? The limits of the use of force had been passed as it is now clear that countries cannot sit back and watch being provoked by any state. The other example is the Russian case. In alliance with some member states, it argued that use of force was only necessary if actual combat provocation was launched against a nation. United Kingdom and the United States had different views. They adopted that use of force was necessary in the event that an imminent attack on any country seemed so o bvious. When the countries after the September eleven attacks on use, they adopted the â€Å"united nations general assembly resolution 60/1†. This was also known as the â€Å"2005 world summit outcome†. This meeting to the astonishment of many did not touch on the issue of self-defence. From this argument, it is now clear that the use of force is never a prohibition. Countries are never limited to use force. Kenya is another good example. They could not risk the outlawed militia, alshabaab to pose security threats to their country. They sent their defence forces and invaded Somali to fight the terror group. Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect Most of the superpowers have been the proponent in opposing the human right activists on invention to the use of force. They claim that many innocent lives are lost. This claim came into picture when safe havens were constructed in Iraq (northern) in 1991. This was the factor behind the marking the zones t hat were not to be used aircrafts. This was lauded more in Kosovo events where was a humanitarian crisis. The most elaborate was the 7th October 1998 of NATO: a) That it is objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to use of force if lives are to be saved4 b) That there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring