International security agreements were not a new product of the twentieth century. The Holy Alliance, for example, among most of the European rulers, represented a defense commitment in central and eastern Europe in the early 19th century. The League Of Nations, however, was the first international organization designed to maintain world peace and deter international aggression.  It was based on collective security against the "criminal" threat of war. (For extensive documentary information on the League, visit the Northwestern University site beginning in December, 2000). See also,  Archives of the League of Nations.

Article 10 of the League Covenant (German language version) provided:

    Contrary to popular wisdom the League's history was not one of uniform failure. As a useful web article notes:

    In October, 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia, following a series of threats against that country, and ineffective appeals to the League by the Ethiopian government.  In the following months Italian aircraft bombed and gassed Ethiopian troops and civilians. The League imposed sanctions but did not include oil, coal, and rubber; the essential materials of modern warfare. The export of aluminum to Italy was forbidden; it was one of the few metals which Italy produced in sufficient quantities for export. By May, 1936, Ethiopia's troops had been defeated and its cities occupied.

    In June, 1936, Haile Selassie I, the Emperor of Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations:

    The British government immediately argued that since the sanctions had failed they should be ended. the sanctions were intended to restrain Italy and to deter it from conquering Abyssinia.  Sanctions ended on 15 July 1936. Before the end of the year,  all but four of the League's members voted to recognize Italy's annexation of Ethiopia.

Nicaragua v US, ¶ 211.

    The founders of the United Nations (for additional background information see U.S. Department of State Background Notes) determined that it should not repeat the experience of the League of Nations, which relied solely upon the individual action of Member States to carry out the sanctions. It was therefore decided that each nation should agree in advance to provide forces and facilities upon which the Security Council could call to prevent or suppress any act of aggression or breach of the peace. Those national contingents are to be under the strategic direction of the Military Staff Committee whenever they are called into action by the Security Council.

See, Speech by Herschel V. Johnson, Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations, June 4, 1947.

    Under Article 43 of the Charter all members "undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."

    The fundamentals of the Military Staff Committee are enunciated in Article 47 of the Charter:

    The Military Staff Committee was initially of considerable interest to the Security Council.  At its second meeting, the Council adopted without a vote the following Resolution:

    The Cold War, however, intervened, and Soviet footdragging essentially caused the MSC to be stillborn. See, Jane Boulden, Prometheus Unborn: The History of The Military Staff Committee, 19 Aurora Papers, Canadian Centre For Global Security (1993), but see, Report by the Military Staff Committee, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946-47 at pp. 424 et seq.

    There have been a number of proposals for breathing life into the U.N.'s military enforcement structure including the creation of a rapid reaction force under U.N. control. There have been equally vehement objections to any military empowerment of the U.N, and some arguments in between. For a nice discussion of the military implications of peace keeping operations see National Defense University's paper of June, 1993.

An Agenda For Peace, Report of the Secretary General, 17 June, 1992 at ¶43.

    On November 13, 2000, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1327, the Annex to which specifically "undertakes to consider the possibility of using the Military Staff Committee as one of the means of enhancing the United Nations peacekeeping capacity." That Resolution also requests regular military briefings from the Secretariat to report on "key military factors such as, where appropriate, the chain of command, force structure, unity and cohesion of the force, training and equipment, risk assessment and rules of engagement." Resolution 1327 demonstrates a clear intention by the Security Council to adopt a more cohesive and realistic means of command and control of military forces, a vital first step in the creation of any effective armed force.

    One of the potent legal problems in peace making/keeping operations is the legal structure and control of actions by international organizations. The potential for internal conflict is great; not only among member States, but between parallel organizations. While the creation of a European Defense Force, or of an effective U.N. military structure has positive implications, it also presents numerous possibilities for diverging and mutually exclusive command and organizational structures. As you review the following examples of coalition warfare, keep in mind those potential problems and consider their solutions.

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization describes itself in this way:

The NATO Handbook (1992).

 Beginning March 23, 1999 NATO aircraft launched repeated attacks against Yugoslavian armed forces and other targets. For NATO's view of the historical background of this conflict see the NATO web site.  There, NATO says that its objectives in instituting the attack were:

On June 9, NATO and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed a a Military-Technical Agreement which permitted "...deployment in Kosovo under UN auspices of effective international civil and security presences," and in which the Yugoslavian Goverment agreed:

    On 10 June, 1999 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1244 which authorized  "...Member States and relevant international organizations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo ... with all necessary means to fulfil its responsibilities..." 

    On June 2, 2000, the ICTY prosecutor reported to the UN Security Council that she found no basis to open a criminal investigation for NATO's conduct of its campaign in Kosevo. See, U.N. Doc. S/PV.4150 (June 2, 2000).

    In 1968 the Warsaw Pact countries, lead by the Soviet Union and East Germany invaded Czechoslovakia to suppress a liberal regime under Alexander Dubcek. The Soviets argued the invasion was justified under the terms of the Warsaw Treaty of 1955, although it was largely viewed as an attempt to prevent the spread of economic and social liberalization.

    The Soviet Union used military exercises to threaten an invasion unless Dubcek complied with Soviet demands. These exercises allowed the Soviet Union to deploy forces along Czechoslovakia's borders with Poland and East Germany.  On August 20, 1968,  twenty-three Soviet divisions, accompanied by one Hungarian, two East German, and two Polish divisions invaded Czechoslovakia and installed a new communist government. 

Dubcek recalls Soviet leader Breznev's explanation of the reasons underlying the invasion:

Alexander Dubcek, Hope Dies Last. The Autobiography of Alexander (Kodansha International, 1993) at p. 212.

    The immediate legal aspects of this action were a sort of uncomfortable military occupation in response to the mass passive resistance of the Czech population:

Telegram From United States Embassy in Czechoslovakia to Department of State, August 24, 1968, Department of State, Central Files, POL 27-1 COMBLOC-CZECH, Confidential; Immediate.

    Consider, the Warsaw Pact's rationale, and the Breznev Doctrine in light of the following quote from the ICJ's decision in Nicaraugua v US at ¶ 246.

    In 1950 North Korean forces invaded South Korea (for excellent background material see the U.S. Army history on-line). Following a Russian walk-out from the security Council, the council passed Resolution 83 which determined that the northern invasion was a breach of the peace and called upon member states to "furnish such assistance ... as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." By October, the Security Council was unable to function since the USSR delegate had returned to exercise his nation's veto power.  Consequently, the Korean question was transferred to the General Assembly where no veto power existed.

On 3 November the General Assembly adopted the landmark Uniting For Peace Resolution. The General Assembly resolved:

General Assembly Resolution 377(v), 3 November, 1950.

    Substantial armed forces, including ground, air and naval units, under the United Nations flag, were deployed in the Korean peninsula, and they engaged in extensive and often fierce combat with North Korean and Chinese Communist forces. The United Nations Command in Korea still maintains extensive forces although the current reality is that outside Korean military assets those forces are from the United States.

   Certain non-governmental organizations ("NGO's") have played and continue to play in both the development and application of the laws of war. The chief occupant of that duel role is the International Committee of the Red Cross ("ICRC"), which is also unique in its position as an exemplar of humanitarian organizations in International Treaties (see, e.g. Geneva Civilians Convention at Article 11). The ICRC lists as areas of potential cooperation with belligerents

Arnold Krammer, Nazi Prisoners Of War In America, (Scarborough House, 1996) at 38.

Ibid at 239.

   Other NGO's have, in recent years, increased their influence and participation in international affairs in general, and in particular with relation to the law of war. Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First, for example have been quite influential in the dialogue relating to use of force and employment of certain types of weapons. Amnesty International and Medecins Sans Frontieres have also played effective roles on certain issues.