President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Tuesday took a step further in supporting the Palestinian cause by calling on the United Nations to consider enforcement measures to end the killing of civilians in Gaza and establish peace in the region.
“In an environment where the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2735 is not implemented, coercive measures against Israel must be taken into consideration,” Erdoğan said during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. “Israel’s stance has once again displayed that it is vital the international community develops a protection mechanism for Palestinian civilians.”
He also said that the U.N. General Assembly should consider advising the Security Council to use force as was done in the Uniting for Peace resolution of 1950, which said, “Where the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall seize itself of the matter.”
The United Nations’ mandate is to end war and promote peace and security. The past year has shown us that this is not always possible. The war in Gaza, having killed at least 41,000 Palestinians, is spreading to the region. A lack of will combined with inaction has paralyzed the U.N. and its Security Council. Frequently, political interests, rivalries and disputes hinder the actions of the organization.
The U.N. has two main methods to take action in times of crisis: peace-keeping and peace-enforcement operations. Although peacekeeping operations are dependent on the consent of the conflicting parties, in this case Israel and Hamas, peace-enforcement operations can take place through the sole decision of the U.N.
Yet, Erdoğan’s call for the U.N. to take action clearly points to enforcement due to his emphasis on coercive measures.
Possessing a power that goes beyond that given to any other international institution so far, the U.N. can take measures such as sanctions, blockades, and other non-military means as well as military action to enforce its decisions. The body usually seeks to solve crises through political means and negotiations instead of military enforcement and it is highly rare in its history since 1945 that it has implemented enforcement. The body lacks much experience in peace enforcement. Moreover, the organization lacks its own military force, thus making it dependent on members’ voluntary financial support, troops and equipment. Rare cases include the case of Iraq in 1990-91 when Baghdad invaded Kuwait, and Libya in 2011 when Moammar Gadhafi attacked his people in Benghazi. Both were deemed a threat to international peace and security.
So, is it possible for the U.N. to use enforcement in the case of Gaza? The answer is technically yes. The U.N. has the legal authority to act.
First, the war in Gaza must be described as a threat to international peace and security according to Article 39 of the charter and must be taken out of the context of being an issue under domestic jurisdiction. The Security Council has the authority and flexibility of describing anything as a threat to international peace so it relies on the views and conduct of its members. Still, war crimes and crimes against humanity – which are clearly taking place in Gaza – are considered breaches of international peace.
As a next step, Article 41 comes into play when the Security Council may decide what measures “not involving the use of armed force” are to be employed to enforce its decisions, as mentioned before.
The ineffectiveness of Article 41 leads to the most important clause of enforcement. Article 42 states that the Security Council “may take action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air, sea or land forces of members of the United Nations.”
Achieving this would require nine of the votes of the 15-member Security Council – including those of the five permanent members, namely China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. However, a scenario in which four of the permanent members vote affirmative and one abstains is also valid. This means that although great power dissensus is a major potential obstacle in activating Article 42, it is technically possible.
The recent adoption by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza was made possible through the U.S. abstaining. So, Washington’s abstaining in this case could open the way for enforcement since Israel did not abide by resolution 2735.
Many international tragedies such as Rwanda or Syria have fallen short of becoming an issue to U.N. enforcement due to disagreements among the P-5. Even the decision to categorize the Gaza war as a threat to international peace and security, despite the war having already spread regionally, is difficult to achieve due to the position of the U.S. Yet, time will show how many and which countries will heed Erdoğan’s recommendation to intervene militarily to stop Israel from killing any more Palestinian civilians.