Naming and shaming: The sorry tale of UN Security Council resolution 1530 (2004)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Security Council Resolution 1530, adopted within hours of the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2003, should give international lawyers pause for thought. It sought to denounce atrocity but, in so doing, it also unequivocally attributed responsibility for the bombings to ETA. It quickly emerged that this was a case of mistaken identity. The revelation of this mistake produced a wealth of questions regarding the capacity of states to manipulate the Security Council, the Council’s procedures themselves, the need or otherwise for evidence of attribution of responsibility, and the consequences, legal or political, that might arise in the light of a glaringly incorrect resolution. In focusing on Resolution 1530, this article considers law’s domain in the Security Council’s political context, particularly the hasty drafting and tabling of a resolution explicable only by reference to a rhetorical war on terror. It also considers the techniques of interpretation regarding so-called ‘terrorism resolutions’, the Security Council’s role as inquisitor and arbiter of evidence and the assumption of good faith on the part of members. It concludes by considering the Council’s future counter-terrorist role and the issue of the Council’s legitimacy.
LanguageEnglish
Pages945 - 968
Number of pages23
JournalEuropean Journal of International Law
Volume17
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2006

Fingerprint

UN Security Council
terrorism
responsibility
lawyer
attribution
faith
evidence
legitimacy
interpretation
Law

Keywords

  • security council resolution
  • international law
  • terrorism

Cite this

@article{1dece72b7d384f1f942dae1fe7a1ffe3,
title = "Naming and shaming: The sorry tale of UN Security Council resolution 1530 (2004)",
abstract = "Security Council Resolution 1530, adopted within hours of the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2003, should give international lawyers pause for thought. It sought to denounce atrocity but, in so doing, it also unequivocally attributed responsibility for the bombings to ETA. It quickly emerged that this was a case of mistaken identity. The revelation of this mistake produced a wealth of questions regarding the capacity of states to manipulate the Security Council, the Council’s procedures themselves, the need or otherwise for evidence of attribution of responsibility, and the consequences, legal or political, that might arise in the light of a glaringly incorrect resolution. In focusing on Resolution 1530, this article considers law’s domain in the Security Council’s political context, particularly the hasty drafting and tabling of a resolution explicable only by reference to a rhetorical war on terror. It also considers the techniques of interpretation regarding so-called ‘terrorism resolutions’, the Security Council’s role as inquisitor and arbiter of evidence and the assumption of good faith on the part of members. It concludes by considering the Council’s future counter-terrorist role and the issue of the Council’s legitimacy.",
keywords = "security council resolution, international law, terrorism",
author = "Therese O'Donnell",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1093/ejil/chl036",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "945 -- 968",
journal = "European Journal of International Law",
issn = "0938-5428",
number = "5",

}

Naming and shaming : The sorry tale of UN Security Council resolution 1530 (2004). / O'Donnell, Therese.

In: European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 5, 11.2006, p. 945 - 968.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Naming and shaming

T2 - European Journal of International Law

AU - O'Donnell, Therese

PY - 2006/11

Y1 - 2006/11

N2 - Security Council Resolution 1530, adopted within hours of the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2003, should give international lawyers pause for thought. It sought to denounce atrocity but, in so doing, it also unequivocally attributed responsibility for the bombings to ETA. It quickly emerged that this was a case of mistaken identity. The revelation of this mistake produced a wealth of questions regarding the capacity of states to manipulate the Security Council, the Council’s procedures themselves, the need or otherwise for evidence of attribution of responsibility, and the consequences, legal or political, that might arise in the light of a glaringly incorrect resolution. In focusing on Resolution 1530, this article considers law’s domain in the Security Council’s political context, particularly the hasty drafting and tabling of a resolution explicable only by reference to a rhetorical war on terror. It also considers the techniques of interpretation regarding so-called ‘terrorism resolutions’, the Security Council’s role as inquisitor and arbiter of evidence and the assumption of good faith on the part of members. It concludes by considering the Council’s future counter-terrorist role and the issue of the Council’s legitimacy.

AB - Security Council Resolution 1530, adopted within hours of the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2003, should give international lawyers pause for thought. It sought to denounce atrocity but, in so doing, it also unequivocally attributed responsibility for the bombings to ETA. It quickly emerged that this was a case of mistaken identity. The revelation of this mistake produced a wealth of questions regarding the capacity of states to manipulate the Security Council, the Council’s procedures themselves, the need or otherwise for evidence of attribution of responsibility, and the consequences, legal or political, that might arise in the light of a glaringly incorrect resolution. In focusing on Resolution 1530, this article considers law’s domain in the Security Council’s political context, particularly the hasty drafting and tabling of a resolution explicable only by reference to a rhetorical war on terror. It also considers the techniques of interpretation regarding so-called ‘terrorism resolutions’, the Security Council’s role as inquisitor and arbiter of evidence and the assumption of good faith on the part of members. It concludes by considering the Council’s future counter-terrorist role and the issue of the Council’s legitimacy.

KW - security council resolution

KW - international law

KW - terrorism

U2 - 10.1093/ejil/chl036

DO - 10.1093/ejil/chl036

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 945

EP - 968

JO - European Journal of International Law

JF - European Journal of International Law

SN - 0938-5428

IS - 5

ER -