In Part I, the author will clarify the facts regarding the evolution of the incidents and the adoption of the resultant resolutions. In Part II, the author will analyze the legal questions regarding the two resolutions. Part II will first examine the legality of the missile launch on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1540, customary international law and the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Second, Part II will examine Resolution 1695's terminology by comparing it to previous resolutions. Third, it will discuss the sanctions based on national legal authorities and legislations. Fourth, Part II will examine international law regarding nuclear weapons control. Part III investigates the legally binding force of the two resolutions. Resolution 1695 does not refer to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (the "Charter") in its main text, indicating that the Security Council may not take any collective security measures toward North Korea. The legally binding force of the resolution has been controversial since its drafting. That question will be discussed here. Resolution 1718 authorized the Security Council to enact non-military sanctions under Article 41 of the Charter. Resolution 1718 also prevents U.N. Member States from providing any arms or technology related to ballistic missiles or WMD. Furthermore, the United States demanded that U.N. Member States take part in cargo inspection to and from North Korea. The final section will be devoted to analyzing the cargo inspection with respect to the law of the sea.
Eric Yong-Joong Lee,
Legal Analysis of the 2006 U.N. Security Council Resolutions Against North Korea's WMD Development,
31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol31/iss1/2