You are here

Iran unrest and divided Security Council

Jan 07,2018 - Last updated at Jan 07,2018

The UN Security Council's (UNSC) meeting on Friday requested by the US on the current wave of unrest and demonstrations across Iran, turned out to be inconclusive. 

Members of the UNSC were first split on the issue of whether the council has jurisdiction over the Iranian situation but they voted, nevertheless, in favour of allowing the members to consider the US complaint against Tehran. 

The matter of whether the UNSC can exercise jurisdiction over the internal situation in Iran, that gave rise to mass demonstrations across the entire country with the death toll reaching over 50 and hundreds others injured or arrested by Iranian security forces, is debatable. 

The widespread demonstrations were initially triggered by the worsening economic situation in the country but soon touched upon other issues relevant to the level of democracy and respect for human rights in the country. 

Russia challenged right at the outset the jurisdiction of the UNSC over a situation that it called a strictly domestic affair of Iran that would be best left for the Iranian authorities to deal with. 

The French ambassador to the council, while expressing concern about the disrespect of the rights of demonstrators, questioned whether that in itself would warrant raising the issue at the UNSC level. 

The French diplomat was blunt when he said that the violations of the demonstrators' rights "do not constitute per se a threat to international peace and security". 

US Ambassador to the UNSC Nikki Haley, who brought the situation in Iran to the council in the first place, was blunt when she warned that "the Iranian regime is now on notice: the world will be watching what you do". 

As a matter of fact, there is no ironclad rule of law on when the UNSC may exercise jurisdiction over an internal situation in any given country. 

The rule of thumb is that the UNSC can indeed exercise jurisdiction over a domestic situation if the level of the repression of demonstrators involved grave violations of humanitarian law and basic human rights in a systematic and gross manner. 

Arguably, the level of the Iranian state response to the demonstrations in the country, while grave, did not reach yet the level of  widespread repressive measures entailing violations of humanitarian law and basic human rights. 

This could all change if the mass demonstration in the country continues and the Iranian authorities resort to clearly systematic, oppressive and brutal methods to deal with them.

 

Under the circumstances the UNSC may opt to remain seized with the domestic situation in Iran but stop short of taking any action for the time being. 

up
35 users have voted.

Comments

WHY IS IT THAT IRAN CAN NEVER BREATH, TRADE, HAVE FRIENDLY COUNTRY OR DO WHAT EVERY OTHER NATIONS DO TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND STABILITY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY?. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY ANY MEMBER NATION OF THE UNITED NATION SHOULD INSITE AND SUPPORT REBELION IN ANOTHER MEMBER NATION OPENLY AND GROSELY?. LAST TIME I CHECKED, IT WAS AGAINST THE UN CHARTER. I KNOW THAT IRAN HAS ITS QUESTIONABLE FOREIGN POLICIES BUT SO AS EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH. WHAT THE WORLD NEED IS PEACE, FAIR DEALS, RESPECT FOR SOVERIGN NATIONS AND NOT FERMENTATION OF MORE PROBLEMS. THE MAJOR CAUSES OF INSTABILITY IT MIDDLE EAST TODAY IS IRAN NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE HANDS IN THE ROOT CAUSES OF THESE PROBLEMS BUT WHOM THEY SUPPORT. IS IRAN THE BOGY MAN OF THE REGION OR THE BIG HEADACHE IN THE REGION?. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ANSWER IS NO AND NOT EVEN THE SECOND, THIRD IF AT ALL SO WHY IS IT THAT EVERY PERSON MOSTLY IN THAT REGION HAVE THIS FIXATION ON IRAN??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.