There has been considerable discussion over the last week regarding the status of Chapter VII. A number of individuals have claimed that Chapter VII was lifted based on Resolution 1883 that was passed on Friday, Aug 4, 2009. This resolution extended the UNAMI program in Iraq for another 12 months. The queston therefore is whether Resolution 1883 could have terminated Chapter VII. This is a case for both sides of this argument.
Background
Any action by the Security Council is conducted by passing a Resolution. Not all resolutions are enacted under Chapter VII. Chapter VII is the legal enforcement arm of the Security Council in which the Security Council can enforce both military and economic legal action i.e.: sanctions against a country. It provides the legal basis for all countries to be in compliance with the actions specified. For example, one of the latest resolutions deals with N. Korea. The Security Council has placed an embargo against any ships transporting nuclear materials. Countries now have the legal authority to stop a suspected ship. Without this legal sanction such action would be illegal. Resolutions that are enacted under Chapter VII include the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII”.
In addition to the new resolutions that are approved existing resolutions are renewed or extended by passing another resolution. As a result programs that have been in effect for a number of years will have a number of resolutions associated with the issue.
Iraq has had over 70 resolutions since 1990, which include new resolutions as well as the resolutions that renew or extend a previous resolution. The resolutions that deal with sanctions all have the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII”. UNAMI was enacted under a separate set of resolutions and the program was never under Chapter VII.
CASE FOR:
1) On August 7, 2009, the Security Council approved Resolution 1883 extending the UNAMI program in Iraq for another 12 months. The resolution included the phrase “Recalling all previous relevant resolutions pertaining to Iraq"
Several individuals claimed this phrase meant every resolution regarding Iraq was null and void thereby terminating Chapter VII.
2) An email received from the inquiry department of the United Nations that stated.
Date Monday, August 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Dear Sir/Madam:
In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7. For more information regarding Iraq please visit the below URL:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31714&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=
CASE AGAINST:
1) The resolutions referenced in 1883 are the resolutions that initially set up the UNAMI program and the subsequent extension/renewal each year. Reading the resolutions will very quickly identify they are not under Chapter VII as the identifying phrase is missing.
2) The phrase “recalling all previous resolutions” is standard to all resolutions renewing, changing or extending a previous resolution. I contacted the UN legal department regarding the intent of this phrase and this was the email response “Here's a quick answer: recalling: "with reference to" or "taking into account"; certainly not in the sense of removing or rescinding.” To consider that the use of this term indicates that all previous Iraq resolutions have been cancelled or terminated without researching the SC use of this term is illogical at best.
3) The Security Council’s procedural rules “provides for the Secretary-General to communicate each week to the representatives on the Security Council a summary statement of matters of which the Security Council is seized and of the stage reached in their consideration”. All resolutions end with the phrase “Decides to remain seized of this matter.” This is the term used by the Security Council to indicate the resolution is an active item on their docket.
4) The procedural rules also state there are two ways to remove a “seized” item;
a) Agenda items that have not been considered in the preceding five years are automatically deleted from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized, unless a Member State notifies the Secretary-General beforehand of its wish to have the item retained;
b) Or, the Council has formally concluded its consideration of the item.
5) SC resolutions are legal documents with legal consequences. Iraq has been subject to those legal consequences for almost 20 years. Resolution 1859 is the Chapter VII resolution currently in effect. The review of the previous resolutions was specifically stated in 1859. Over the last several months, Iraq has been extremely vocal regarding the removal of Chapter VII and the review of all previous resolutions back to 1990. The reason for the review is to formally conclude these resolutions thereby legally terminating all sanctions as per the Security Council’s procedural rules. Based on the history of the Security Council the formal conclusion is approving a new resolution that states all items have been terminated. This removes Iraq from the legal consequences of Chapter VII. It is also the legal notification to other member countries to cease and desist on any further action regarding Iraq. This is not a procedure that can be implied by the use of a phrase “recalling all previous resolutions”.
6) Resolutions that did not set up a program cannot be used to terminate the program. The resolutions that set up UNAMI and subsequently extended its operation did not include any of the Chapter VII sanctions. Such an action would be in contradiction to the Council procedural rules.
7) The first UN email stated “In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7” came from a department in the UN that is responsible for answering email inquires. This answer was a policy statement that had no independent confirmation from any other source. The Security Council, Secretary General, Iraq or any other entity involved had not made any formal statement or acknowledgment that Chapter VII had indeed been lifted. That fact alone should have caused individuals to pause and further question the validity of this statement before rushing to assumptions not supported by facts. In addition, this email referred to a link that was the press release for the UNAMI resolution. This was another inconsistency as UNAMI was not associated with Chapter VII. To use the news link to support the statement that Iraq was no longer under Chapter VII was either an error or a misunderstanding of the issue.
8) The second email response from the UN also contained a number of errors.
• First error-- To quote "Resolution 1859 is the last Security Council resolution concerning Iraq." Resolution 1883 was the last resolution not 1859.
• Second error--To quote "By reviewing the aforementioned resolution, you will find answers to your questions." Resolution 1859 was enacted under Chapter 7 and does not expire until December 31, 2009. 1859 very clearly states "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." This was a contradiction to the first email statement saying that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
• Third error--To quote "Also, please note that the mission in Iraq is not under Chapter 7. It is a special political mission called United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMA)" UNAMA is the mission to Afghanistan not Iraq. The only correct part of this statement was that the “Mission”, which is UNAMI, is not under Chapter VII.
• Fourth error--To quote " For more information on UNAMA and its mandate, please visit the following address: http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx." This link is to the mission for Afghanistan not Iraq.
9) The UN is most likely structured as any other governmental agency in that the individuals that answer emails are probably on the bottom of the chain within the UN personnel structure. Considering the number of errors and contradictions that are present in the received emails the validity of their knowledge is definitely questionable.
10) I contacted the Security Council, by telephone, regarding the issue of Iraq’s Chapter VII status. The Security Council representative I spoke with stated that an open forum debate would be held over the next few weeks, possibly Sept, regarding the Chapter VII issue. I was further advised to watch the Security Council calendar and that the meeting would be broadcast for public viewing on the UN webcast. This was another contradiction to the statement from the UN email inquiry department. I would suggest that an individual within the Security Council would be more attuned to the facts and events than a person answering email inquiries.
11) Articles from both Iraq and Kuwait continue to reference the compensation issues and Chapter VII. If Chapter VII had indeed been lifted as claimed by a number of individuals, why is this still a topic of discussion?
12) Entered below is an email that I sent to the United Nations requesting clarification on this issue. To date I have not received a response. I have been advised that other individuals have also sent email inquiries and have not received any response. It would appear that the UN may be aware of the legal ramifications of the mistake that has been made in the previous email responses and as a result has terminated all responses to Iraq inquires.
Email inquiry
Two inquires have been sent to your organization regarding Iraq’s status under Chapter 7. The answers that were provided included several errors. I have included a copy of the full text of each email for your review.
The first email stated and I quote "In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7." The link that was provided was a press release regarding UNAMI. Resolution 1883 (2009) extended the UNAMI mission in Iraq for another 12 months. The UNAMI program was never enacted under Chapter 7. This response did not provide confirmation to support your statement that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
The second email from your organization also contained errors.
• First error-- To quote "Resolution 1859 is the last Security Council resolution concerning Iraq." Resolution 1883 was the last resolution not 1859.
• Second error--To quote "By reviewing the aforementioned resolution, you will find answers to your questions." Resolution 1859 was enacted under Chapter 7 and does not expire until December 31, 2009. 1859 very clearly states "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." This is a contradiction to your first email statement saying that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
• Third error--To quote "Also, please note that the mission in Iraq is not under Chapter 7. It is a special political mission called United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMA)" UNAMA is the mission to Afghanistan not Iraq.
• Fourth error--To quote " For more information on UNAMA and its mandate, please visit the following address: http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx." This link is to the mission for Afghanistan not Iraq.
If the Freedom of Information Act is applicable to the United Nations, then under that Act I am requesting your response to the following questions.
1. Is Iraq still under Chapter 7? (please provide a yes or no answer)
2. If the answer to question #1 is Yes, will a new resolution will be required to remove Iraq from Chapter 7? (please provide a yes or no answer)
3. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the document number, the effective date and reference the specific paragraph or paragraphs that removed Iraq from Chapter 7.
4. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the disposition of the six items listed in Resolution 1859 that are under the heading of "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."
5. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the disposition of Resolution 1859.
Thank You
Background
Any action by the Security Council is conducted by passing a Resolution. Not all resolutions are enacted under Chapter VII. Chapter VII is the legal enforcement arm of the Security Council in which the Security Council can enforce both military and economic legal action i.e.: sanctions against a country. It provides the legal basis for all countries to be in compliance with the actions specified. For example, one of the latest resolutions deals with N. Korea. The Security Council has placed an embargo against any ships transporting nuclear materials. Countries now have the legal authority to stop a suspected ship. Without this legal sanction such action would be illegal. Resolutions that are enacted under Chapter VII include the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII”.
In addition to the new resolutions that are approved existing resolutions are renewed or extended by passing another resolution. As a result programs that have been in effect for a number of years will have a number of resolutions associated with the issue.
Iraq has had over 70 resolutions since 1990, which include new resolutions as well as the resolutions that renew or extend a previous resolution. The resolutions that deal with sanctions all have the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII”. UNAMI was enacted under a separate set of resolutions and the program was never under Chapter VII.
CASE FOR:
1) On August 7, 2009, the Security Council approved Resolution 1883 extending the UNAMI program in Iraq for another 12 months. The resolution included the phrase “Recalling all previous relevant resolutions pertaining to Iraq"
Several individuals claimed this phrase meant every resolution regarding Iraq was null and void thereby terminating Chapter VII.
2) An email received from the inquiry department of the United Nations that stated.
Date Monday, August 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Dear Sir/Madam:
In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7. For more information regarding Iraq please visit the below URL:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31714&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=
CASE AGAINST:
1) The resolutions referenced in 1883 are the resolutions that initially set up the UNAMI program and the subsequent extension/renewal each year. Reading the resolutions will very quickly identify they are not under Chapter VII as the identifying phrase is missing.
2) The phrase “recalling all previous resolutions” is standard to all resolutions renewing, changing or extending a previous resolution. I contacted the UN legal department regarding the intent of this phrase and this was the email response “Here's a quick answer: recalling: "with reference to" or "taking into account"; certainly not in the sense of removing or rescinding.” To consider that the use of this term indicates that all previous Iraq resolutions have been cancelled or terminated without researching the SC use of this term is illogical at best.
3) The Security Council’s procedural rules “provides for the Secretary-General to communicate each week to the representatives on the Security Council a summary statement of matters of which the Security Council is seized and of the stage reached in their consideration”. All resolutions end with the phrase “Decides to remain seized of this matter.” This is the term used by the Security Council to indicate the resolution is an active item on their docket.
4) The procedural rules also state there are two ways to remove a “seized” item;
a) Agenda items that have not been considered in the preceding five years are automatically deleted from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized, unless a Member State notifies the Secretary-General beforehand of its wish to have the item retained;
b) Or, the Council has formally concluded its consideration of the item.
5) SC resolutions are legal documents with legal consequences. Iraq has been subject to those legal consequences for almost 20 years. Resolution 1859 is the Chapter VII resolution currently in effect. The review of the previous resolutions was specifically stated in 1859. Over the last several months, Iraq has been extremely vocal regarding the removal of Chapter VII and the review of all previous resolutions back to 1990. The reason for the review is to formally conclude these resolutions thereby legally terminating all sanctions as per the Security Council’s procedural rules. Based on the history of the Security Council the formal conclusion is approving a new resolution that states all items have been terminated. This removes Iraq from the legal consequences of Chapter VII. It is also the legal notification to other member countries to cease and desist on any further action regarding Iraq. This is not a procedure that can be implied by the use of a phrase “recalling all previous resolutions”.
6) Resolutions that did not set up a program cannot be used to terminate the program. The resolutions that set up UNAMI and subsequently extended its operation did not include any of the Chapter VII sanctions. Such an action would be in contradiction to the Council procedural rules.
7) The first UN email stated “In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7” came from a department in the UN that is responsible for answering email inquires. This answer was a policy statement that had no independent confirmation from any other source. The Security Council, Secretary General, Iraq or any other entity involved had not made any formal statement or acknowledgment that Chapter VII had indeed been lifted. That fact alone should have caused individuals to pause and further question the validity of this statement before rushing to assumptions not supported by facts. In addition, this email referred to a link that was the press release for the UNAMI resolution. This was another inconsistency as UNAMI was not associated with Chapter VII. To use the news link to support the statement that Iraq was no longer under Chapter VII was either an error or a misunderstanding of the issue.
8) The second email response from the UN also contained a number of errors.
• First error-- To quote "Resolution 1859 is the last Security Council resolution concerning Iraq." Resolution 1883 was the last resolution not 1859.
• Second error--To quote "By reviewing the aforementioned resolution, you will find answers to your questions." Resolution 1859 was enacted under Chapter 7 and does not expire until December 31, 2009. 1859 very clearly states "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." This was a contradiction to the first email statement saying that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
• Third error--To quote "Also, please note that the mission in Iraq is not under Chapter 7. It is a special political mission called United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMA)" UNAMA is the mission to Afghanistan not Iraq. The only correct part of this statement was that the “Mission”, which is UNAMI, is not under Chapter VII.
• Fourth error--To quote " For more information on UNAMA and its mandate, please visit the following address: http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx." This link is to the mission for Afghanistan not Iraq.
9) The UN is most likely structured as any other governmental agency in that the individuals that answer emails are probably on the bottom of the chain within the UN personnel structure. Considering the number of errors and contradictions that are present in the received emails the validity of their knowledge is definitely questionable.
10) I contacted the Security Council, by telephone, regarding the issue of Iraq’s Chapter VII status. The Security Council representative I spoke with stated that an open forum debate would be held over the next few weeks, possibly Sept, regarding the Chapter VII issue. I was further advised to watch the Security Council calendar and that the meeting would be broadcast for public viewing on the UN webcast. This was another contradiction to the statement from the UN email inquiry department. I would suggest that an individual within the Security Council would be more attuned to the facts and events than a person answering email inquiries.
11) Articles from both Iraq and Kuwait continue to reference the compensation issues and Chapter VII. If Chapter VII had indeed been lifted as claimed by a number of individuals, why is this still a topic of discussion?
12) Entered below is an email that I sent to the United Nations requesting clarification on this issue. To date I have not received a response. I have been advised that other individuals have also sent email inquiries and have not received any response. It would appear that the UN may be aware of the legal ramifications of the mistake that has been made in the previous email responses and as a result has terminated all responses to Iraq inquires.
Email inquiry
Two inquires have been sent to your organization regarding Iraq’s status under Chapter 7. The answers that were provided included several errors. I have included a copy of the full text of each email for your review.
The first email stated and I quote "In response to your query, please note that Iraq is no longer under Chapter 7." The link that was provided was a press release regarding UNAMI. Resolution 1883 (2009) extended the UNAMI mission in Iraq for another 12 months. The UNAMI program was never enacted under Chapter 7. This response did not provide confirmation to support your statement that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
The second email from your organization also contained errors.
• First error-- To quote "Resolution 1859 is the last Security Council resolution concerning Iraq." Resolution 1883 was the last resolution not 1859.
• Second error--To quote "By reviewing the aforementioned resolution, you will find answers to your questions." Resolution 1859 was enacted under Chapter 7 and does not expire until December 31, 2009. 1859 very clearly states "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." This is a contradiction to your first email statement saying that Iraq was no longer under Chapter 7.
• Third error--To quote "Also, please note that the mission in Iraq is not under Chapter 7. It is a special political mission called United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMA)" UNAMA is the mission to Afghanistan not Iraq.
• Fourth error--To quote " For more information on UNAMA and its mandate, please visit the following address: http://unama.unmissions.org/default.aspx." This link is to the mission for Afghanistan not Iraq.
If the Freedom of Information Act is applicable to the United Nations, then under that Act I am requesting your response to the following questions.
1. Is Iraq still under Chapter 7? (please provide a yes or no answer)
2. If the answer to question #1 is Yes, will a new resolution will be required to remove Iraq from Chapter 7? (please provide a yes or no answer)
3. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the document number, the effective date and reference the specific paragraph or paragraphs that removed Iraq from Chapter 7.
4. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the disposition of the six items listed in Resolution 1859 that are under the heading of "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."
5. If the answer to Question #1 is No, please provide the disposition of Resolution 1859.
Thank You
