The North Korean Nuclear Crisis: An Assessment of the Legal Justification of the Use of Force by the United States (Published)
Since the outbreak of North Korean nuclear crisis, there have been many calls on the United States government to apply tougher measures on the DPRK to deal with its provocations and defiance on the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Regime. Tougher measures on North Korea include sanctions and the use of force. However, any eventual use of force by the United States on North Korea will be illegal if it does not meet the criteria of the Caroline Doctrine that requires that anticipatory self-defense be both necessary and proportional. Furthermore, any use of force that goes beyond the Caroline Doctrine will undermine the Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter that allows war only in self-defense. Given the fact that any use of force on North Korea will challenge the normative basis on which global society has been supported, it is imperative to solve the nuclear crisis through negotiations by continuing the Six Party Talks, with a commitment not only on the part of the DPRK to give up its nuclear program but also on the United States to sign a Non-Aggression Pact with Pyongyang that replaces the armistice of 1953, so as to assure that its survival as a State will not be at stake.
The Legality of Humanitarian Intervention (Published)
The humanitarian intervention is a concept in evolution that is widely accepted, but also controversial at the same time. The legality of humanitarian intervention is a controversial issue because on the one hand the intervention contradicts the Charter of the United Nations and on the other hand it is developed through state practice. The international system of security is based on concepts such as non-interference and the sovereign equality of states, concepts by which States do not give up because of the stability that derives from them, even in terms of increasing the evaluation for human rights and the obligation of states for the protection of these rights. The use of force against a state is prohibited if it is unauthorized by the Security Council of the United Nations, or is not taken for self-defense. In international life the disputes between countries should be resolved peacefully. This general prohibition of the use of force causes the difficulty of establishing norms and policies on humanitarian intervention. Nothing in the United Nations Charter creates the possibility that the use of force for humanitarian purposes to be understood differently from any other type of the use of force. Can the use of force in the form of humanitarian intervention be considered legal, according to this existing international legal environment? Does the practice of humanitarian intervention support the legality of the intervention?