revistaieee7

Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 7 / 2016
limited to intervening to maintain peace, but it has also become an international legislator
and a guardian of international treaties to a certain degree. This development
in practices affords the Council, in addition to the freedom to act, the power to decide
how states should act, both those who are party to the treaties and those that are not. 26
In one sense, this growing prominence of the Security Council has provoked a great
deal of uncertainty and suspicion among states. In accordance with international law,
the international organisations may only generate new law by means of treaties or
regulatory decisions, it thus remains unclear whether this body has the competence to
legislate or control the compliance of international legal standards by states.
On the other hand, according to the NPT, the participation of the Security Council
within the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament framework is in line with
the strategy of cooperation, meaning that this United Nations body may not create
obligations that are not contained within the NPT. Its work does not consist in concluding
a conventional regime, but instead it must confine itself to requiring states to
act in a certain way when it deems their threatening to international security.
Following the Iraq-Kuwait case in 1990-1991, the Security Council formally proclaimed
in a presidential statement on January 1992, for the first time, that the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction as such constituted a threat to international
peace and security. 27
Years later, in its Resolution 984 (1995) this body reaffirmed that all states parties to
the NPT must meet their obligations; 28 it thus urges all states ‘to pursue negotiations
in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty
on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’
-as is stipulated in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-. At the same
time, the Security Council offered guarantees to the non-nuclear states (parties to the
NPT), assuring them that it would intervene in the event that one of these states were
subjected to or threatened with an attack involving nuclear weapons by other states.
From our point of view, we may consider that the Security Council acted in a discriminatory
manner and one inconsistent with spirit and the text of the Charter of the United
Nations, since Article 24 thereof clearly stipulates that the responsibility of Council is to
26 WECKEL, Philippe. ‘Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies et l’arme nucléaire’, Annuaire
Français de Droit International, vol.52, 2006, pp.178-185.
27 On 31 January 1992, the Security Council met at Heads of State and Government level and approved
Presidential Declaration S/23500 on the matter of ‘The responsibility of the Security Council
in the maintenance of international peace and security’. The declaration states, among other things,
that progress in the areas of disarmament, armaments control and non-proliferation are critical to
the maintenance of international peace and security, and that the proliferation of all weapons of mass
destruction poses a threat to international peace and security. It also underscores the need for all states
to meet their obligations concerning the control of armaments and disarmament, as well as for them
to avoid the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction in all its aspects.
28 Resolution 984 (1995) adopted by the Security Council on 11 April 1995.
254
http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee