The UN Security Council has the responsibility of maintaining global peace and security as described in the UN Charter. In its formation, the member states had a primary goal of achieving global diplomacy and averting the horrors witnessed in World War II Cannizzaro 192 2006. However, various states and political scholars have criticized the effectiveness of the UNSC in handling global challenges contemporary security issues and International threats. Most scholars point out that the UNSC's Veto power for its permanent members affects its decision making hence undermining its legitimacy as an international organization. This has been a lead to some scholars who argue that the UN Security Council is merely a concert of great powers that have never been representative of the International community. Other critics argue that the Security Council only serves the interest of the Super Power countries while the other around two hundred and seventy member states act as mere signatories Cannizzaro 200 2006. As evidenced in recent occurrences of International threats such as transnational terrorism and illicit arms trade the UNSC has hit a deadlock and is unable to respond to international challenges. As will be outlined below the Security Council's demonstration in solving various global conflicts brings to light the effectiveness and limitations of delegating the responsibility of maintenance of global peace to a small group of powers.
Mandatory Mareva, Anton Pillar, Orders Bayer Injunctions. The last area to be discussed where refinements and variations to the Campus Oil tests have evolved to minimize the risk of injustice in special cases are those of i mandatory injunctions, ii Mareva injunctions and iii Anton Pillar orders. As detailed previously in Bula Ltd O Murchú Shelbourne Holdings and Okunade the courts will adopt a stricter test for mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage. Similarly, with Quia Timet injunctions, the test is also strict In Szabo Geoghan J specifically doubted the appropriateness of the Campus Oil guidelines given that he found it distasteful to engage in a balancing exercise, between carrying on business and health. He doubted whether a proven substantial risk of damage could occur before the hearing and so the application was refused.
