Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Sources of state sovereignty : possession and use of force

Charter of the UN
Article 2 (4): of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence
if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right
of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the
authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it
deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Having An Army Might Be Practical, But It's Not Obligatory
June 21, 2014, Laura Secorun Palet, NPR.org
Even in times of global economic crisis and shrinking national budgets, many countries cling tight to their
military forces. Defense spending, for most states, is considered an unavoidable necessity for protecting citizens.
But what if having a military wasn't necessary? There are currently 23 countries in the world that don't have an
army, and they seem to get by just fine. Their profiles vary significantly, and the total count depends on how
states and militaries are defined, but most are small nations with no military capabilities whatsoever. They
include Andorra, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, the Vatican, Samoa, Nauru, Kiribati and other tiny island-states.
In addition, there are half a dozen countries with no standing army that maintain limited paramilitary security
forces for protection. These include Iceland, Haiti, Monaco, Mauritius, Vanuatu and Panama. Being a
demilitarized state might sound like a peace-loving panacea, but most of these nations made the choice to go
without armed forces for very pragmatic reasons: ideals. Many of the countries were formed without an army
when they gained independence including the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Samoa and Tuvalu
and therefore didn't see a need to create a military, given their small size and lack of foreign enemies.
Other countries Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Costa Rica underwent a full demilitarization process. The best
illustration is Costa Rica, which dissolved its army in 1948 after a short but bloody internal conflict, and the
decision was incorporated into the country's constitution.In 1990, Panama followed suit, dismantling its army
after the American invasion to remove the country's military dictator, Manuel Noriega. Their public security
apparatus, the Panamanian Public Forces, however, does maintain some warfare capabilities.
For many of these countries, not having an army is a source of national pride, and it has even helped some
assume roles as international peacemakers. Costa Rica, for example, is home to the headquarters of the United
Nations University for Peace, and Iceland, through its Crisis Response Unit, participates in peacekeeping efforts
in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Palestine. Not having an army also frees up a significant percentage of the national
budget that can be allocated to other public sectors, such as health and education. While defense spending
consumes 3.8 percent of the United States' GDP and 4.1 percent of Russia's, it's a flat zero percent for Costa Rica
and Panama. And even if you factor in other security forces, such as border patrols, coast guards and air
surveillance, Costa Rica spends less than .05 percent of its GDP a year on security.
Still, going without an army obviously comes with risks, and many of these military-free nations have protection
agreements with larger countries. Iceland, for example, is under the wing of NATO, and different member states
take turns guarding Iceland's air space. Monaco is protected by France, Italy looks after the Vatican and Andorra
was smart enough to sign an agreement of protection in case of invasion with both of its neighbors, France and
Spain. So not having an army is both possible and economically advantageous, especially for small nations, but
it's not necessarily the best move for every small country like Taiwan or Israel.