Page 8 - td_ctxinter_2_rgmtcharteps_2020-2021

TD - www.lex-publica.com - © M. Coulibaly 8/10

not the individual Members. However, in Article 2, proclaiming the ' Principles ' of the United Nations, the
Members, in settling their international disputes by peaceful means, are obliged only to observe ' that interna-
tional peace and security, and justice, are not endangered'—only ' justice,' not 'international law,' although
Article 2 says that the Members shall act in accordance with the Principles ' in pursuit of the Purposes.' It is
hardly understandable why the Organisation shall bring about adjustment or settlement of international dis-
putes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, whereas the Members—in pursuit of this Purpose—shall settle all their international dis-
putes, but not 'situations,' in conformity with ' justice ' but not with ' international law.' It is hardly understand-
able why the obligation of the Members is a ' Principle ' whereas the function of the Organisation is a ' Purpose.'
As regards the conformity with justice and international law, there is no concordance between Article 1, para-
graph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 3, nor between both Articles and the Preamble.

4. INTERNATIONAL PEACE
The peace the maintenance or restoration of which is a purpose of the United Nations is characterised as '
international ' peace. In ordinary use of language, ' international peace ' is a condition of absence of force in
the relations among states. ' International ' peace is to be distinguished from ' internal ' peace, peace within one
and the same state. Hence it is not the purpose of the United Nations to maintain or restore internal peace by
interfering in a civil war within a state. This interpretation may be confirmed by the provision of Article 2,
paragraph 7, forbidding any intervention on the part of the Organisation ' in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.' However, a civil war, as any other situation within a state, may
be interpreted by the competent organ of the United Nations as a threat to international peace, in which case
intervention on the part of the Organisation is not prohibited according to the express provision of Article 2,
paragraph 7. Hence it is doubtful whether the restriction implied in the term ' international ' peace is of any
importance.
The purpose of the United Nations to maintain or restore peace is not restricted to the relations among the
Member states. There is no provision of the Charter stipulating such restriction. Article 2, paragraph 6, ex-
pressly provides that the Organisation shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations
act in accordance with the Principles laid down in Article 2 of the Charter ' so far as may be necessary for the
maintenance of international peace and security.' Hence the Principles formulated as obligations of Members:
to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from threat or use of force, apply also to non-
member states. The Preamble in establishing as an end of the United Nations ' to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war,' refers to ' mankind.' The purpose of the United Nations is world peace.
[…]

pp.359 et s.
QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ADJUSTMENT OF OTHER SITUATIONS
According to Article 1, paragraph 1, the Organisation shall bring about adjustment or settlement of interna-
tional disputes or other situations which might lead to a breach of the peace not only by peaceful means but
also ' in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' This is a postulate directed at all
the organs of the United Nations which are competent, according to the Charter, to perform the function of the
United Nations determined in Article 1, paragraph 1, second part. These organs are the General Assembly, the
Security Council, and the International Court of Justice, ' the principal judicial organ of the United Nations '
(Article 92). As far as the Court is concerned, the postulate to conform with the principles of justice and inter-
national law is not consistent with the provision of Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute, according to which
the Courts' function is to decide disputes ' in accordance with international law,' not in accordance with the
principles of justice.

Since the principles of justice are not identical with, and sometimes in opposition to, the rules of positive
international law, it may be impossible to comply with the postulate to conform with both, justice and
international law. The General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, in making recommendations for
the settlement of disputes, if justice is in conflict with positive international law, can only apply the one or the
other, not both at the same time. Hence they have the choice between the two principles. The—probably not
intended— effect of the formula in question is that the organs of the United Nations which act under the
provision of Article 1, paragraph 1, second part, may refuse to apply the rules of existing international law if
they consider them to be unsatisfactory, and apply principles which they consider to be ' just.' Since the Char-