Security Council Resolution 1530, Evidence and the United Nations Security Council

By O'Donnell, Therese | Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society of International Law, Annual 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Security Council Resolution 1530, Evidence and the United Nations Security Council


O'Donnell, Therese, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society of International Law


EARLY DAYS

Following the Madrid terrorist bombings the United Nations swiftly responded with Security Council Resolution 1530 (2004) [hereafter Resolution 1530] condemning the "ETA" attacks as a threat to peace, urging states to comply with their Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) obligations in locating those responsible. While a symbol of sympathy, Resolution 1530 unequivocally and incorrectly attributed responsibility, unintentionally prompting a reflection about standards of evidence in denunciations of terrorism. Our consideration of the importance of standards of proof incumbent upon states demanding an institutional reaction following a terrorist attack should be set within the context of proposals that have been made for the establishment of an independent, standing fact-finding commission--perhaps one of the more interesting innovations advanced for the Security Council. (1)

While the notion of adducing evidence might be more honored in the breach than the observance, in the context of self-defense the rhetoric at least is clearly (albeit variably) adhered to. We can note in this respect the actions taken against Libya in 1986, Sudan in 1998, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003 (2) The final example occurred after, and despite, President Bush's caution that the United States could not wait for "final proof ... that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (3) However, this (contested) trend towards the production of supporting evidence seemed to take a plunge in the case of Madrid. The condemnation of ETA and the consequent reification of Spain's intense counter-terrorism strategies, hardly seemed to necessitate a half-hearted attempt to adduce any evidence, much less a smoking gun.

Although Resolution 1530 did not envisage use of force, it did concern a state which had been introducing increasingly draconian anti-terrorist measures, and whose treatment of ETA incommunicado detainees had been an issue of concern for the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in February 2004. (4) Although not foreseeing particular enforcement, Resolution 1530 cross-referenced Resolution 1373. In its December 2001 report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee, Spain specifically recounted its experience with ETA, in relation to its post-9/ 11 initiatives. (5) Consequently Resolution 1530 had significant potential for ETA suspects or detainees in Spain--the Aznar Administration's anti-ETA stance much strengthened by this international endorsement. Bearing this in mind, Resolution 1530's reference to a "mere" threat rather than an act of aggression or a breach of the peace--as some lesser form of Charter breach (6)--should not have dissipated Spain's burden of proof. While Spain was never subject to a criminal standard of proof, it apparently obtained Resolution 1530 on a fraction of the evidence required in any domestic criminal conviction of an ETA suspect. Thus, in its own way, Resolution 1530 removed the presumption of innocence, potentially seriously impacting upon any subsequent judicial criminal proceedings against ETA suspects, had it not been debunked as early as it was. Obtaining resolutions can be a subtle enterprise and once one resolution has been obtained, there is often a seamless segueing towards the next one. While potentially catastrophic in the case of a resolution condemning a terrorist act then demanding enforcement action (or impliedly authorizing self-defense)--even in Resolution 1530's case--consequences such as ordaining other states to extradite ETA suspects (a la Lockerbie) or authorizing force against ETA networks believed to be operating internationally could have arisen.

Sometimes dilatory in action, the Security Council acted within hours of the attacks, thus reinforcing a perception that Spain was experiencing clear and present danger. (7) No debate occurred, with explicatory comments from Council members emerging off-the-record. Spain's certainty as to ETA's responsibility was embodied and emphasized in its lightning-speed drafting and tabling of the resolution.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Security Council Resolution 1530, Evidence and the United Nations Security Council
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?