پارادایم رفتاری شورای امنیت در مقابله با تروریسم در بستر ماده 51 منشور؛ از القاعده تا داعش

ماده 51 منشور سازمان ملل متحد در باب حق دفاع مشروع است. این حق تا قبل از حملات یازده سپتامبر، کمتر محل مناقشه بود. اما در طول بیست سال گذشته و در پی دو مناقشه بزرگ در خاورمیانه و واکنش شورای امنیت به آن، این حق و نحوه استناد به آن، دوباره به محل بحث و جدل بدل شد. در این مقاله با توجه به ادعای بازنگری شورای امنیت در مفهوم دفاع مشروع و صدور قطعنامه‌هایی از طرف این سازمان، به بررسی و تحلیل رفتاری شورا در این خصوص پرداخته شده است. در مجموع علی‌رغم صدور قطعنامه‌های 1368 و 1373 که به تفسیر موسع از حق دفاع مشروع پرداخته است، اما عدم تکرار این موضوع در قطعنامه‌های متعددی که شورا در سال‌های بعد صادر کرده است، نشان از عدم تحول اساسی در رفتار شورا نسبت به مفهوم دفاع مشروع دارد. حتی صدور قطعنامه 2249 را که برخی مبنایی برای توسل به دفاع مشروع در برابر داعش می‌دانند، فاقد وجاهت لازم است. چرا که از یک سو به دفاع مشروع اشاره نکرده است و از سوی دیگر نیز بر اساس فصل هفتم منشور صادر نشده است. از سوی دیگر شورا در رویه خود برای مقابله با تروریسم، به طور فزاینده‌ای نقش ساختارهای زیر نظر خود را تقویت کرده است. همچنین به تقویت ادبیات شورا در مورد تروریسم به عنوان تهدید علیه صلح وامنیت بین‌المللی پرداخته است که حوزه اصلی مسئولیتش تلقی می‌شود. بنابراین اقدام شورا در باب جواز توسل به دفاع مشروع در تقابل با تروریسم را باید یک استثناء دانست.

the behavioral paradigm of the united nations security council in addressing terrorism under article 51 of the charter: from al-qaeda to isis

the prohibition of the use of force constitutes one of the cardinal principles of international law, subject to only two exceptions: first, the inherent right of self defense as enshrined in article 51 of the united nations charter, and second, measures undertaken by the security council to maintain international peace and security pursuant to chapter vii of the charter. prior to the attacks of september 11, the invocation of the right of self defense was predominantly confined to states against each other. however, following the emergence of non state threats such as al qaeda and isis, the question arose as to whether self defense can be invoked against terrorist groups. this article seeks to analyze the behavioral patterns of the united nations security council in responding to this issue, and to assess the extent to which an expansive interpretation of the right to self defense against terrorist groups. this study adopts a descriptive analytical approach, grounded in extensive library based research. data were collected from academic literature, security council resolutions, judgments of the international court of justice (icj), and credible online resources, and were systematically analyzed. the research is selected from the pre 9/11 era to the emergence of isis and the corresponding security council resolutions. special attention is devoted to detailed examination of resolutions 1368, 1373, and 2249, and an analysis of the legal literature related to the right to self defense. the findings reveal that the terrorist attacks of september 11 represented a watershed moment in the conceptualization of self defense against non state threats. in resolutions 1368 and 1373, immediately after these attacks, the security council recognized the right of states to self defense against terrorist threats, although this recognition was limited to the preamble of the resolution and was not explicit in the operative parts. in these resolutions, self defense was presented in general terms without specific reference to the non state nature of the attackers. a more nuanced analysis demonstrates that, after these two resolutions, in subsequent resolutions—even in facing broader threats such as isis—the council refrained from reiterating or expanding this position. resolution 2249 on isis, although it condemned the threats of this group and called for confronting it, without addressing the right to self defense and was not issued under chapter vii of the charter; therefore, its legal value for justifying the use of force is limited. moreover, in the analysis of existing legal theories, it was observed that the broad interpretation of article 51 of the charter, which accepts self defense against non state groups based on theories such as the unable or unwilling doctrine and the accumulation of events theory, although supported by some countries such as the united states, france and the united kingdom, has not become a binding custom at the international level.