War-Making Powers of the United Nations

by CAPTAIN EDWARD J. ROXBURY, JR.

Against the background of a United Nations action in Korea and truce team operations at several critical trouble spots in the world, the international body's legal structure for military action to preserve the peace is a matter of great interest. Can the UN order out forces against an aggressor?

In April 1945, with the flush of victory permeating the United Nations, a meeting was held in San Francisco to write the charter for anew world organization. This organization was to include all “peace-loving” nations of the world, and these nations were to work together to ensure the peace. This new world peace body was enthusiastically accepted by the majority of the people of the United States.

In 1919, President Wilson had brought back from Paris the covenant for a similar organization, boldly titled the League of Nations. This country had turned its back on it. There was no less a desire for universal peace than in 1945, but indifference born of the long war, suspicion of foreigners, a fear of commitments, and, perhaps most of all, domestic politics kept the United States out of the League of Nations. Senator Borah expressed a widely held view in a debate in the Senate concerning the approval of the League, when he said, “there are some things in this world more to be desired than peace, and one of them is the unembarrassed and unhampered and untrammeled political independence of this republic. If peace cannot be had without our surrendering that freedom of action, then I am not for peace.”

In 1919, rejection; in 1945, almost universal acceptance. A recital of the reasons for this change is neither necessary nor pertinent. But what is remarkable is that in either case acceptance or rejection by the majority of the people of the United States was largely based on the same misunderstanding of the role of these world bodies. The misconception as to the actual amount of power possessed by these organizations was the cause of this misunderstanding.

The League of Nations and the United Nations have been called “supergovernments”; they have been likened to our Congress or the British Parliament. They have been characterized as law-making bodies which would impinge upon our sovereignty and lay down rules for the governing of the world. In both cases these definitions were to a great extent believed. This belief was a large factor in turning the United States away from the League of Nations in 1919. In 1945, perhaps believing that “unembarrassed and unhampered and untrammeled political independence” was not quite so important as peace, we accepted the United Nations.

That either world organization was or is in any way a “supergovernment” or a law-making body is, of course, untrue.

The United Nations has had, however, a further burden of misunderstanding to bear. As the UN came into being the idea was prevalent that there also had been created within it a “world police force” made up of soldiers of all nations, or a multi-nation army under United Nations control. Critics said that our Congress' prerogative of declaring war had been abdicated in favor of the Security Council. At best it was somehow felt that if called upon, the United States had to furnish troops to the United Nations. Confusion about the war-making power of the UN still exists today.

The League of Nations Covenant had done little more than hint that in case of dire need the members would band together militarily to enforce the peace. The United Nations Charter seems to go much further. Paragraph 1 of Article 43 says, “All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.” Article 47 creates for the use of the Security Council a Military Staff so it may properly use the military forces for the maintenance of peace and security—in effect, an United Nations army, navy, and air force.

This would seem to mean that the “world police force” was actually legally in existence. Each member should have available, on call, an armed force which would perform at the bidding of the Security Council.

In Korea, there is every external manifestation of this force. The United Nations flag is used; the troops are called the United Nations Forces; the commanders are issuing orders as United Nations orders. The army there is multi-national and although the United States is furnishing the ranking officers, other nations are consulted on major decisions. Political decisions were commonly supposed even by members of the committee on Armed Services of the U. S. Senate to come from the UN itself. All outward aspects make the forces fighting in Korea appear to be an army fielded by, and under the command of, the United Nations.

Can the UN order the United States and other nations to furnish troops to repel anew aggression if there is another breach of the peace similar to Korea? Does the United Nations, in other words, have any practical war-making power?

Actions of some members of the UN give us more than a hint of the answers to these questions. The dramatic refusal of Russia to do anything but hinder the avowed purposes of the fighting in Korea does not bring her dismissal from the UN. The failure of many nations, although friendly to our cause, to furnish troops or equipment to Korea has brought them no reprisals. These examples indicate that there must be some flaw in the assumption that the United Nations can order armies into action.

The flaw is to be found in the Charter of the UN itself and in the assumption, at the time of the writing of the Charter, of Big Power accord. If Article 43 is reread, the phrase “in accordance with special agreement or agreements” will be found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article go on to explain what is meant by this phrase. They are worded so that no nation is compelled to commit armed forces to the United Nations unless they have made an agreement beforehand to exactly what armed forces they are willing to allow it to use. In other words, before the UN can have an army, the separate nations must agree to give it one.

At no time, including the present, since the United Nations has been formed has any nation made any agreement to furnish any type of armed forces to the international body.

In all fairness to the Charter, it should be said that an article is included which was supposed to take care of the interim period between the signing of the Charter and the reaching of military agreements with the UN. But, this article, 106, again is based on Great Power cooperation and consequently has had no useful function.

Actually, then, the UN has no practical war-making power at all simply because it has no army.

In light of this, it is interesting to read the resolutions condemning the actions of the North Koreans as a breach of the peace and urging aid for the South Koreans, which were passed by the Security Council on June 25 and 27 of 1950. They very carefully use the words “calls upon” and “recommends” when trying to get nations to take action against the North Koreans. No stronger words could be used, for no members were compelled to obey. Suggestion was all the power the United Nations had.

Although it is evident that the United States and many other nations will voluntarily furnish forces to fight for the principles of the United Nations, the fact remains that, at the present time, the United Nations as a political body has no actual power of its own to mount an army in the field or to order any nation to do so.