Re-Assessing State Use of Indirect Force under a UNSC Authorisation

This chapter examines the powers of the UN Security Council and how the SC’s ‘all necessary’ authorisation model should be interpreted, particularly in relation to indirect force. The chapter explores the legal arguments and debates by scholars and states regarding this practice, with particular focus on its application in recent cases such as Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. It aims to show how, due to the imbalance of power within the SC, claims of ‘all necessary means’ have become the new legal language used by powerful states to justify their strategic and economic interests in a target state, all under the guise of maintaining ‘international peace and security’. The chapter challenges the mainstream positivist view that the use of indirect force for enforcing SC mandates is legitimate and calls for a reform of the collective security system in this area. The central argument is that employing indirect force under a broad interpretation of authorisation contradicts the primary purpose and function of the UN and the Security Council.