Abstract

United Nations Security Council resolutions raise distinctive problems of interpretation, particularly in the context of Chapter VII measures. In disputes of interpretation, the stakes are very high, since Chapter VII measures may explicitly or implicitly authorize military action; may override the target nation’s sovereignty; and may put lives at risk. However, there is no direct, binding judicial review of Security Council measures where questions of interpretation can be resolved. Consequently, interpretive disputes are resolved in a highly politicized process. This article considers three situations where the language of the resolutions was ambiguous. The interpretation of these resolutions was then shaped entirely by the political maneuvering which took place within the Security Council.