Separating Protection from Politics: The UN Security Council, the 2011 Ivorian Political Crisis and the Legality of Regime Change

Abstract

The relationship between the United Nations (UN) and its Member States is under constant evolution, in particular with regards to the demarcation of the state’s sovereignty. The global movement towards action against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing has encroached substantially upon what would traditionally have been considered ‘matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction’ of a state; the parameters of the Security Council’s power to ‘maintain or restore international peace and security’ is consequently of much contestation and negotiation. This article discusses the involvement of the Security Council through its peacekeeping force, the UN Operation in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI), in the Ivorian political crisis of 2011, and its impact upon the line dividing ‘domestic jurisdiction’ and ‘international peace and security’. Specifically, the article discusses the actions of UNOCI and its alleged participation in the removal of the government of Laurent Gbgabo from power, with reference to its Security Council mandate and the practical realities concerned with realising the civilian protection portion of its mandate. The article argues that regime change may be a necessary strategy in tackling government-committed atrocities. Moreover, with reference to the principle of self-determination, the article argues that Security Council-initiated regime change is within the boundaries of the Council’s legal power. Finally, the article discusses its practical ramifications, with reference to the conflict over sovereignty arising between ‘Western’ states and the so-called ‘BRICS’ (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries.