International terrorism has been a topical issue that caught the UN’s attention since the last quarter of the twentieth century. However, the UN initially dealt with it as an internal matter. In this regard, terrorism has become a global threat with the emergence of terrorist organizations. These organizations are not limited to a specific geographical scope; some of them are linked to countries, while others seek to occupy territories in order to control the oil wells and even create armies. They cannot continuously conduct their activities without financial support that provides it with the means to implement its plans and the resources to finance its field and logistical operations in all forms. One of the most important sources of financing terrorist and their organizations is money laundering operations. This research is to analyze the UN’s role in combating money laundering to prevent terrorist acts around the globe.

Today, the question on the legal instruments of international organisations that impose direct sanctions on individuals and legal entities have surfaced, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions. States are obliged to implement the UNSC Resolutions but would face difficulties in this course. The UNSC’s coercive approach rubs international security against democratic legitimacy, especially when the Resolutions violate due process of law, principle of legality and human rights. To date, Indonesia’s stance on international law (including UNSC Resolutions) under its legal system remains unclear. This study analyses the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions in Indonesia, which has no uniformity without a UN Act. The case of North Korean vessel, MV Wise Honest, highlights the growing confusion in Indonesia because violation of the UNSC Resolutions has not been governed. Conclusively, Indonesia needs to enact a UN Act to provide legal certainty in the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions.

The scope of the maintenance of international peace and security has been increasingly widened by the United Nations Security Council in response to actions taken not only by the Member States but also in some cases by the individuals. In fact, a range of actions and decisions were taken by the Security Council, approximately in the late 1990s and after the so-called 9/11 attacks in the context of combating terrorism, as well as in other contexts against the member States. In consequence, the affected States and individuals had to seek redress from international or national courts on different grounds such as violations of human rights. This has led the domestic courts to develop novel jurisprudence. Thus, it is necessary to pay due attention to the jurisprudence created by these courts. This paper is devoted to analysis an interpretation by the High Court of Singapore in relation to sanctions resolutions of the Security Council against Iran.

While a broad consensus exists over the necessity of reforming the Security Council, the disagreement among the different groups of member States prevails in great part due to the enlargement and category of membership and the working methods. Such divergence in views attributed to the stalemate in the debate over the Security Council’s reform. However, the recent discussion has gained momentum since the launch of the intergovernmental negotiation at the UN level. The key issues surrounding the UN Security Reform include the size of an enlarged Council, categories of membership with proper regional representation, the veto, working methods and relations with the General Assembly. It is essential not only to properly assess the content of the different proposals to bring out the most‘ sensible’solution, but the attitude of the five permanent members should also be closely examined. In any case, the potential changes in the structure of the Security Council would ultimately require a unanimous decision of the 5P States. This article aims to review the historical development of the Security Council’s reform debate and concentrate on the most contentious questions by analyzing the content of the relevant proposals to test the feasibility of each option.

The Article 24 of the United Nations Charter prescribes the responsibility of the Security Council in maintaining the peace and security of the international community. Due to emerging threats against international peace, such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and increasing recognition of the ‘ human security’concept, the Security Council now needs to diversify approaches to international security, such as prevention by establishing new international norms through quasi-legislation activities, in addition to a conventional approach of response to crisis such as peace keeping. Thus, the reform of theSecurity Council must be considered so that the Security Council could deal with such new threats more effectively as well as more legitimately.

분쟁의 평화적 해결에 관해 ‘국제연합헌장’은 다음과 같이 규정하고 있다: 국제연합의 어떠한 회원국도 그의 계속이 국제 평화와 안전의 유지를 위협하는 분쟁에 대해 안보리에 주의를 환기 시킬 수 있으며(제35조), 안보리는 분쟁의 어떠한 단계에 있어서도 적절한 조정의 절차와 방법을 권고할 수 있다(제36조 제1항). 안보리는 권고를 함에 있어서 일반적 으로 법적 분쟁을 ‘국제사법재판소규정’이 정하는 바에 따라 당사국에 대하여 국제사법재판 소에 회부하여 해결할 것을 고려하여야 한다(제36조 제3항). 일본정부는 1954년 9월 25일 독도영유권 문제를 먼저 분쟁으로 간주하고 그 분쟁을 국제 사법재판소에 제소하여 해결할 것을 한국정부에 제의한 바 있으며, 이에 대해 한국정 부는 1954년 10월 22일 한국의 권리를 어떠한 국제재판소에 의해 확인받아야 할 이유가 없다는 것을 근거로 일본정부의 제의를 거절했다. 2012년 8월 10일 이명박대통령의 역사 적인 독도방문에 대해 일본정부는 8월 24일 독도문제를 국제사법재판소에 제소하여 해결하 자고 제의해온 바 있다. 역시 한국정부는 이를 일축했다. 독도영유권 분쟁의 해결에 관한 일본정부의 기본적인 전략은 ‘국제연합헌장’ 제36조의 규정에 따른 안보리에 권고 결의를 통해 분쟁을 국제사법재판소에 제소하는 것으로 추정된 다. 이에 대한 한국정부의 대응전략을 수립함에 있어서 한국정부는 독도영유권 문제를 분쟁 화하는 일이 없도록 하고, 안보리가 ‘국제연합헌장’ 제36조의 규정에 따라 국제사법재판소 에 제소하라는 권고결의를 해도 이 분쟁을 국제사법재판소에 제소하지 아니하는 것을 고려 해야 한다.