JUST WRONG: This is closer to an actual argument, however:

Furthermore, the Security Council does not properly have the authority to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe for its government’s misrule and brutality. This is not the purpose of the United Nations Security Council. Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council can impose sanctions, blockades and even authorise military action to restore “international peace and security,” according to the provisions of Chapter VII, but one of the key provisions of the Charter that no one in the West seems to care for very much (and which non-revisionist powers such as Russia and China end up defending out of self-interest) is the statement in Article 2.

Where Larison goes on to quote most of 2(7). No mention is made of Legal Realist or International Legal Reform-style interpretations, nor is the question asked whether this law constitutes good law that makes sense. But one need not even go so far: he neglects the last part of 2(7), which reads:

...but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

So nothing in Article 2 prejudices Chapter VII, even on a strict positivist interpretation.

No comments: