298 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 1 / 2013 Charter and some of the essential problems raised by its interpretation and application nowadays. During the last decade different problems of interpreting the right of-defence have come to the fore, particularly the dispute between the supporters (in a minority) and detractors of a right to preventive self-defence to latent threats. There is also the possibility of invoking self-defence so as to cover the military response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the acceptable extent of this interpretation. The preparatory Reports of the Millennium Summit held in 2005 coincide in stating that the Charter provides coverage to the use of force in self-defence when faced with a consummated armed attack, or faced with an imminent threat of this. Conversely, the argument of invoking self-defence in order to justify unilateral actions against derived latent threats, fundamentally from international terrorism, would not gain support from the Charter. Only the Security Council, acting within the context of Chapter VII, could authorise the preventive use of force to preserve international peace and security when faced with serious but latent threats. Another issue that takes centre place in the agenda of several of the main bodies of the UN was the emergence of a collective responsibility to protect the civilian population against war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. While some reports from independent experts assessed this as an emerging principle, the General Assembly lowered expectations in the 2005 Summit Outcome Document. Later reports from the Secretary General, as well as the dialogue held by the General Assembly about the responsibility to protect, have contributed towards explaining the content of this significant element, although the problems concerning its legal nature and effective application still need to be further set out in detail. This is one situation that reveals the division that the concept has aroused, especially in its coercive dimension. The responsibility to protect covers a wide range of instruments, from preventive measures of varied nature to other collective ones of a non-military character. Only in extremely serious situations and when the necessary requirements are met, can it be necessary to intervene in a military sense. This solution is always exceptional and it must be in line with the terms laid down by the Charter, and so it is subject to prior Security Council authorisation. Both cases, exercising the responsibility to protect and reacting to latent threats, involve the Security Council acting according the provisions of the Charter. The system therefore revolves around the Council assuming this responsibility. Experience shows that if the Security Council does not act, it is hard to stop States particularly interested or affected by the situation from intervening unilaterally.
REVISTA IEEE 1
To see the actual publication please follow the link above