From what I understand, Article 5 only works through unanimous agreement. If one member were to attack another, that would likely preclude them from voting for every other member to join together against them.
The aggressor could be expelled from NATO, but once again, that's not exactly something the treaty has a mechanism for. More than likely it'd require a kind of disillusion of NATO, and a creation of NATO 2.0 with all of the countries, sans the aggressor.
When the NATO treaty was crafted, they apparently never anticipated someone like the serial self-defecator-in-Chief gaining power of a member nation.
Here is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Nothing about unanimous agreement there. Check the whole treaty text here:
I don't think you will find anywhere else any provision that limits the application of Article 5 in the way you suggest. If you are a NATO member and anyone attacks you within the zone in which the treaty applies, then if I am a member I am obliged to help you, including by the use of armed force. with the aim of "restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the security of the North Atlantic area".
The problem that does arise is if country A, a NATO member, attacks country B, also a member. It could be argued that if NATO member country C limits itself to taking military action to help country B to repel the attack of country A, but does not attack the territory of country A, then country A cannot claim it has been attacked by country C in a way that qualifies it for aid under article 5. Here article 6 is relevant:
Article 6
- For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [declared inapplicable after those territories left French control in 1962], on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Since Greenland is not an "area in Europe" it might seem that if the US sent troops to attack Greenland, then any US forces in Greenland could be attacked without the US being able to invoke Article 5. But Greenland is in "the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer", so ...
I just make these points as a matter of law. If Trump was to decide after all to attack Greenland, debate on Articles 5 and 6 is unlikely to play a major role in deciding what happens next.
NATO operates on consensus decision making. Any action of NATO as a body (as opposed to individual countries choosing to act in accordance with the treaty) requires common consent.
1. I agree that if it is announced that "NATO has decided as follows ..." that has to be the result of a consensus amongst the members. As the source you linked to says:
When a “NATO decision” is announced, it is therefore the expression of the collective will of all the sovereign states that are members of the Alliance.
This principle of consensus is applied at every committee level, which means that all NATO decisions are collective decisions made by its member countries.
2. However, I suggest that you were not correct when you said in your original post "From what I understand, Article 5 only works through unanimous agreement."
Article 5 is, as the text of the Treaty (a legally binding document) makes clear, binding on individual members. The text of the Article (see below) makes it plain that if an armed attack on one of the members occurs, then "each of them ... shall take ... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". A member country may take such action "individually", as well as 'in concert with the other Parties'. Clearly, the Treaty would be a pretty useless document if action in support of a member under attack could be ruled out by just one NATO member refusing to agree with all the others!
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
=========
Nothing about unanimous agreement there. Check the whole treaty text here:
I don't think you will find anywhere else any provision that limits the application of Article 5 in the way you suggest. If you are a NATO member and anyone attacks you within the zone in which the treaty applies, then if I am a member I am obliged to help you, including by the use of armed force. with the aim of "restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the security of the North Atlantic area".
The problem that does arise is if country A, a NATO member, attacks country B, also a member. It could be argued that if NATO member country C limits itself to taking military action to help country B to repel the attack of country A, but does not attack the territory of country A, then country A cannot claim it has been attacked by country C in a way that qualifies it for aid under article 5. Here article 6 is relevant:
Since Greenland is not an "area in Europe" it might seem that if the US sent troops to attack Greenland, then any US forces in Greenland could be attacked without the US being able to invoke Article 5. But Greenland is in "the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer", so ...
I just make these points as a matter of law. If Trump was to decide after all to attack Greenland, debate on Articles 5 and 6 is unlikely to play a major role in deciding what happens next.
NATO operates on consensus decision making. Any action of NATO as a body (as opposed to individual countries choosing to act in accordance with the treaty) requires common consent.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
When the US was attacked on 9/11 (the only time Article 5 has been invoked), the NAC still had to meet, and reach a consensus that the US was attacked, and the attack originated outside of the US. The US invoked Article 5, but it wasn't until the following day after the full Council had met that they issued their consensus statement and decision. It isn't automatic. It still required the NAC to convene, and reach consensus.
Granted that was somewhat unique in that it wasn't an identifiable sovereign country that attacked, there still had to be a meeting and consensus to actually invoke Article 5. If the US attacked Canada, NATO couldn't act as a body without the NAC meeting, and the NAC would need to reach consensus. All it would take is the US, or another NATO member saying "no, we don't agree that Canada was attacked."
And indeed, it is a fatal flaw of the treaty that a member nation can theoretically attack another, and then deny the NAC reaching common consent on whether a given term of the treaty should be enacted. There's also the fun irony that under the treaty, the US would then have to defend Canada against the US. The treaty is also flawed in how wet noodly the common "defense" can be.
I don't think they can be blamed for not imagining that a member nation would one day elect the Fanta Menace.
When the US was attacked on 9/11 (the only time Article 5 has been invoked), the NAC still had to meet, and reach a consensus that the US was attacked, and the attack originated outside of the US. The US invoked Article 5, but it wasn't until the following day after the full Council had met that they issued their consensus statement and decision. It isn't automatic. It still required the NAC to convene, and reach consensus.
Granted that was somewhat unique in that it wasn't an identifiable sovereign country that attacked, there still had to be a meeting and consensus to actually invoke Article 5. If the US attacked Canada, NATO couldn't act as a body without the NAC meeting, and the NAC would need to reach consensus. All it would take is the US, or another NATO member saying "no, we don't agree that Canada was attacked."
And indeed, it is a fatal flaw of the treaty that a member nation can theoretically attack another, and then deny the NAC reaching common consent on whether a given term of the treaty should be enacted. There's also the fun irony that under the treaty, the US would then have to defend Canada against the US. The treaty is also flawed in how wet noodly the common "defense" can be.
I don't think they can be blamed for not imagining that a member nation would one day elect the Fanta Menace.
I’m not sure that US invoked Article 5. The statement on 9/12 seems to indicate that the US’s Allies invoked it.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
In my previous posts you will find a link to the text of the treaty.
Please look at the text of the treaty, and show me where it says that in order for Article 5 to take effect, the NAC is legally required to convene, and reach consensus, as you once more assert. I do not think you can do that - of course I may be wrong.
I hope I am not being annoying and obsessive by insisting on the status of the treaty as a legal document whose provisions can only be overridden or modified by another document of equivalent legal status. But this point does matter.
Dr Steuss wrote:
When the US was attacked on 9/11 (the only time Article 5 has been invoked), the NAC still had to meet, and reach a consensus that the US was attacked, and the attack originated outside of the US. The US invoked Article 5, but it wasn't until the following day after the full Council had met that they issued their consensus statement and decision. It isn't automatic. It still required the NAC to convene, and reach consensus.
Granted that was somewhat unique in that it wasn't an identifiable sovereign country that attacked, there still had to be a meeting and consensus to actually invoke Article 5. If the US attacked Canada, NATO couldn't act as a body without the NAC meeting, and the NAC would need to reach consensus. All it would take is the US, or another NATO member saying "no, we don't agree that Canada was attacked."
And indeed, it is a fatal flaw of the treaty that a member nation can theoretically attack another, and then deny the NAC reaching common consent on whether a given term of the treaty should be enacted. There's also the fun irony that under the treaty, the US would then have to defend Canada against the US. The treaty is also flawed in how wet noodly the common "defense" can be.
I don't think they can be blamed for not imagining that a member nation would one day elect the Fanta Menace.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
In my previous posts you will find a link to the text of the treaty.
Please look at the text of the treaty, and show me where it says that in order for Article 5 to take effect, the NAC is legally required to convene, and reach consensus, as you once more assert. I do not think you can do that - of course I may be wrong.
I hope I am not being annoying and obsessive by insisting on the status of the treaty as a legal document whose provisions can only be overridden or modified by another document of equivalent legal status. But this point does matter.
Dr Steuss wrote:
When the US was attacked on 9/11 (the only time Article 5 has been invoked), the NAC still had to meet, and reach a consensus that the US was attacked, and the attack originated outside of the US. The US invoked Article 5, but it wasn't until the following day after the full Council had met that they issued their consensus statement and decision. It isn't automatic. It still required the NAC to convene, and reach consensus.
Granted that was somewhat unique in that it wasn't an identifiable sovereign country that attacked, there still had to be a meeting and consensus to actually invoke Article 5. If the US attacked Canada, NATO couldn't act as a body without the NAC meeting, and the NAC would need to reach consensus. All it would take is the US, or another NATO member saying "no, we don't agree that Canada was attacked."
And indeed, it is a fatal flaw of the treaty that a member nation can theoretically attack another, and then deny the NAC reaching common consent on whether a given term of the treaty should be enacted. There's also the fun irony that under the treaty, the US would then have to defend Canada against the US. The treaty is also flawed in how wet noodly the common "defense" can be.
I don't think they can be blamed for not imagining that a member nation would one day elect the Fanta Menace.
for what it's worth, Chap, I think you are reading Article 5 correctly. 9/11 presented a novel question — did “attack” included a non-state sponsored terror stack? Or was it limited to attacks on a member state by another state. That was a question that had to be resolved before Article 5 was triggered, which likely had to be resolved by consensus.
Once it was determined there was an attack, the obligation to support is automatic. The fact that Article 5 specifically states that the support can be individual or collective tells me that no consensus decision is required to trigger the obligation.
I don’t think your question is pedantic. It is pretty important when thinking through what to do if the US attacks Greenland.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
