This article examines the legality of the use of force in international law. The article revealed that faith in the UN may weaken when it fails to act in contexts where its Charter requires or implies it should, or when its actions fail to achieve the intended results. As a result, it is critical for the UN’s integrity and vitality that it is willing and able to act in circumstances that warrant its intervention. If there was a successful alternative to meeting global aims, it would deter states from taking matters into their own hands. This leads to the conclusion that we can welcome illegal but clearly justified action, or what we might call ‘legitimate’ action, under certain specified circumstances. The article proposes several broad areas where the UN could rationally undergo reform. As the maintainer of peace and security, it would be unwise for the UN to engage ‘with incomplete and incremental change.’ The UNSC needs ‘greater credibility, legitimacy, representation, effectiveness, and enhanced capacity and willingness to act in defense of the common peace.’ Therefore, the article advocates for the development of a legal doctrine of humanitarian intervention. A suggested criterion is the existence of a supreme humanitarian emergency, the use of force as a last resort, and the achievement of a positive humanitarian outcome. If the UNSC can identify these criteria for lawful humanitarian intervention, it would be wiser to authorize force. The use of force would then be under central control, as opposed to unilateral state action with a potentially undefined mandate. Keywords: International law, Justification, Legitimacy, UN Charters, Use of force.
Amanya Johnmary (Sun,) studied this question.