Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.Keywords: Charter; General Assembly; Security Council; United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations

The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict

In this article we adopt the framework of Just War doctrine to assess whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just. The six criteria against which we assess the justice of going to war are Just Cause, Right Authority, Right Intention, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Proportionate Cause and War as Last Resort. We focus upon what was known and said by the US, British and Australian governments around the time they decided to invade and consider whether there was sufficient justification and authorisation for the Iraq War. The key pre-war issues discussed include alleged Iraqi possession of WMD and links to terrorist organisations, and the meaning of UN Security Council resolutions. We conclude that, as the Just War criteria were not satisfied, the invasion of Iraq was unjust.

Just War Doctrine and the Invasion of Iraq

Origins of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security

Advancement in communication technology evolved means and structure of media production. It also democratized dissemination of information. Social media as a significant platform for political enga...

Social media and disinformation in war propaganda: how Afghan government and the Taliban use Twitter

Almost a decade after the horrific events of September 11 it is timely to reflect on some of the lessons learned from the global ‘war on terror’. The evolution of a more sophisticated understanding of the threat posed by contemporary terrorism has cast doubt on the value and accuracy of using a war metaphor to define an effective global response. Terrorism is fundamentally the use of intimidation and fear to force major social and political change. The willingness of terrorists to use indiscriminate force against civilians means that terrorism falls outside the scope of the international laws governing armed conflict. In responding to terrorism with extreme (war-like) measures, there is a risk that the state could damage the social bonds that are the foundation for a cohesive, peaceful, inclusive, and resilient society.

Just war theory and the war on terror

In responding to the threat of terrorism the former Australian government acted to redefi ne the nature of intelligence advice. While the intent may have been to shield secret information and intelligence from public scrutiny and conceal its inherent limitations, the effect could be to devalue and undermine the vital role of professional intelligence analysis in transforming collected information into valuable and reliable interpretations and insights.

Bill Calcutt

Papers

Just war theory and the war on terror

The Role of Intelligence in Shaping Public Perceptions of Terrorism