Enhancing Global Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy

According to the UN Charter (Article 26), the UN Security Council is the primary organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Nuclear states agreed to the adoption of a UN Security Council Resolution that provided positive security assurances. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution №255 on June 19, 1968, was of particular significance. This resolution stipulated that instances of aggression involving the use of nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon state would require immediate action by the UN Security Council and its permanent members, who are nuclear-armed states. The aim of the work is to determine the role of the UN Security Council in the system of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The methodological basis of the study will focus on the analysis and understanding of the impact of the UN Security Council on strategies and measures aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the international context. The results of our research have shown that the role of the UN Security Council in the disarmament of Iraq’s nuclear program, which could have led to the development of nuclear weapons, proved to be significant. To achieve this, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution №687 adopted on April 3, 1991, the Special Commission (UNSCOM) was established. During an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council at the highest level on September 24, 2009, Resolution UN Security Council Resolution № 1887 was adopted, aimed at supporting nuclear non-proliferation, criticizing Iran and North Korea. Resolution №1887 outlines measures to strengthen control and the rights of nuclear-weapon states to demand the return of nuclear materials and equipment in case of violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or withdrawal from it. It also involves enhancing security measures for the storage of nuclear materials and strict export controls. Conclusions. In our opinion, the powers of the UN Security Council in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should be utilized more promptly and effectively. The insufficient effectiveness of this international mechanism in preventing proliferation remains a cause for serious concern among UN members worldwide. To enhance the effectiveness of the UN Security Council, we propose the adoption of a comprehensive resolution that includes provisions on the procedure for a state’s withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its violation of commitments to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. This resolution should stipulate the imposition of sanctions against such a state based on a special report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Such a mechanism can ensure an effective impact of the international community on states that withdraw from the NPT.

The subject of the study is the role of the UN Security Council in the international system of countering money laundering and terrorist financing. The author pays special attention to the historical component, identifying the reasons for the transformation of the UN approach to money laundering and terrorist financing and tracing the link between the globalization of terrorist acts and the development of counteraction by the UN Security Council. The main functions of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC of the UN Security Council) and the Executive Directorate (CTED of the UN Security Council) are outlined. The article reveals the role of a number of UN Security Council documents as a systemically significant source of law in the context of the international system for countering money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as individual problems faced by states implementing the norms of resolutions into their national legislation. The methodological basis of the study was a combination of general scientific (logical method and analysis) and private scientific methods (comparative legal, historical legal, historical and sociological). The article systematically details the development of the UN Security Council's approach to the problem of money laundering and terrorist financing. Through careful consideration of individual provisions of the resolutions, the role of this UN Security Council and its bodies in developing measures and countering ML/FT is being specified. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that the UN Security Council has played a systemically significant role in the formation of an international system for countering money laundering and terrorist financing, consolidating a number of advanced international standards developed by international organizations, para-organizations and other institutions. In addition, the author clarifies that it is thanks to the UN Security Council that it is possible to further "solidify" the FATF Recommendations and their full implementation into the international legal system.

Seated at the famous horseshoe table in the United Nations Security Council chamber in New York on 25 October 1962, US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented fellow Council members with photographic evidence of Soviet missile installations in Cuba. Unveiling the evidence collected by US intelligence services over the previous weeks and months, Stevenson’s performance produced a supreme and memorable moment of Cold War drama. Some 40 years later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, making the case Review Essay

media-genic: countries debate, votes are taken, drama abounds as when Colin Powell made his case for intervention in Iraq. The Council's composition is sup posed to reflect coercive power in the world, and it is the only institution whose decisions are expected to be binding on all member states of the UN. Sometimes it does not seem to work well and reformers want to change its composition bet ter to reflect current power. The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority seeks to encour age us to think differently about the institution, reflecting radically alternative way to conceptualize power in supranational institutions. It is different from the usual take on the Security Council, which can focus on process and issues dealt with, like Edward Luck's (2006) UN Security Council: Practice and Promise, or David Malone's (1998) analysis of the specific case of Haiti in his Decision-making in the UN Security Council, or Chinmaya Gharekhan's (2006) personal memoire in The Horseshoe Table: An Inside View of the UN Security Council. Bruce Cronin and Ian Hurd start the process in their introductory chapter, which sets out their focus on authority and legitimacy as key factors in the Council's effectiveness. Authority here means a relation among actors within hierarchy in which one group is recognized as having both the rights and the competence to make binding decisions for the rest of the community... (p. 6). As such it is related to legitimacy, form of very soft power. Hurd's next chapter elaborates on this and sets up tests of authority as way of assessing the Council. This is based on Hurd's earlier work on legitimacy in After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Hurd 2007). Eric Voeten's chapter on the nature of Security Council authority combines an institutionalist and realist perspective on how decision making can be seen as bargaining between public goods perspective (peace and security are good for everyone) and private goods perspective (a given State's national interest). He shows that the decision-making process is evolving in such way that agree ment in the Security Council is becoming increasingly important. Bruce Cronin's chapter on how international consensus has expanded the Security Council's legal authority is central argument in the volume. It demon strates that consensus, which is the prevailing means of decision making at the international level, allows international law to develop. As he notes, ...it reflects the growth of legal norms that are derived not from individual state consent,

Introduction. The relevance of the study of sanctions as a tool of US foreign policy lies in the fact that today sanctions have become so rapid that they have become one of the most important mechanisms in modern international relations. The relevance of this study is confirmed by the fact that taking a strong place in the foreign policy of many countries and international organizations, sanctions have become an alternative or addition to the use of force to force individual states to fulfill the political demands of the countries initiating sanctions. In the context of globalization of the world economy, the process of intensification of the application of sanctions policies by individual states is taking place in order to increase its role in the international arena. Given that today sanctions are the leading instrument of foreign policy and are considered as a compromise response to undesirable actions of a particular state, it is necessary to consider the legal and institutional framework for their implementation. Materials and methods. As the materials of the study were taken data presented in both monographic studies and journalistic articles of domestic, but to a greater extent foreign experts in the field of international law and the General modern history. The article is written on the basis of an international legal analysis of the articles of the UN Charter, resolutions of the UN Security Council, as well as a detailed historical and comparative analysis of the legal framework for the application of EU sanctions, the United States, RF and Canada. Results. The results of the study showed that sanctions international legal relations are based on the Charter of the United Nations (Article 39 and 44), and are implemented through the resolutions of the UN Security Council. Having identified a threat to peace or international security, the UN Security Council has the right, on the basis of a collectively adopted decision, to attract the offending object to international responsibility, that is, to impose sanctions measures against it. At the disposal of the UN Security Council there are special sanctions committees that are engaged in the implementation of sanctions policy. Conclusions. Today the UN has a streamlined legal and institutional mechanism for the implementation of international sanctions. If we consider the sanctions imposed by individual states, in most cases the mechanism of introducing the same, as a rule, decision on the adoption of sanctions is entrusted to the president and the executive authorities. In addition, each state in the issue of the introduction of restrictive measures is repelled by its national legislation. Sanctions as an instrument of American government influence have undergone major changes. Their effectiveness has increased significantly over the past twenty years, so the United States aims to continue to provide a solid foundation for the effectiveness of the sanctions policy for many years.

Two assumptions underpin much of the literature that has examined the links between HIV/AIDS and security: (1) that HIV/AIDS is now firmly established as an international security issue; and (2) that Resolution 1308, adopted by the UN Security Council in July 2000, was the decisive moment in the securitization process. This article questions both of those assumptions. It argues that even within the Security Council, HIV/AIDS' status as a bona fide threat to international peace and security is not entirely secure. Despite the fact that the Resolution was adopted unanimously, there is considerable doubt over the extent to which the Council members were persuaded that HIV/AIDS is genuinely a threat to international peace and security. Furthermore, the Council's subsequent actions suggest a retreat from the issue. The article moves on to examine statements made in and by some of the other key UN System bodies grappling with HIV/AIDS. Focusing in particular on the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and UNAIDS, it is argued that the international security framing of HIV/AIDS has not generally achieved a great deal of traction within these bodies. Alternative framings, in particular international development and human rights, occur far more frequently. This raises issues for our understanding of both securitization theory and the global governance of HIV/AIDS.

This article contributes to the literature on global governance, legitimacy, and small states through a detailed analysis of the Global Governance Group. It examines in particular the operational impact and wider conceptual implications of the 3G's collective diplomatic efforts on the Group of 20. By engaging in a reconfigured form of informal multilateralism, the article finds that the 3G has been and is capable of shaping the global agenda with respect to the G-20 in a way that is both more inclusive and connected with existing institutions, especially the United Nations. Through this initiative, this group has effectively recalibrated the existing narrative about small states, the G-20, and global governance--shifting it from the paradigm of efficiency to one of legitimacy. Keywords: 3G, G-20, global governance, informal groups, small states. Informal Global Governance As new centers of power mobilize and old institutions fall behind the curve of change, the trend in world politics has been for countries to substitute, bypass, or marginalize established institutions of global governance in favor of engagement with new forms of cooperative institutional arrangements--in short, toward informality in global governance. International relations theory has traditionally been uneasy with forms of informal global governance. (1) Realists have dismissed them as irrelevant given that powerful members can go it alone, and neoliberal institutionalists are uncertain of what to make of these forums where formal institutional structures or binding agreements are not apparent. (2) Students of rational design see the advance of centralized rather than disaggregated models of international organizations. (3) Yet this trend toward informality is not only important for extending the debate about the manner by which cooperation can be secured in the global political economy after hegemony, (4) but the manner by which small states attempt to influence bigger ones. Marked by less hierarchy and greater flexibility, informal global governance of small states is an admittedly fuzzy concept, and explaining its theoretical relevance has therefore been a challenge for dominant international relations paradigms. Moreover, the relationship between conceptualization and issue-specific international practice beyond the domain of the UN Security Council in select crisis situations has not been extensively explored. Notwithstanding Jochen Prantl's call in his 2005 International Organization article for extended studies of the dynamics between internal arrangements and formal international organizations, there has been scant research that explores the use by smaller states of informal groups to increase their leverage in the global political economy and so increase our understanding of power, legitimacy and change. (5) Thus, in functional terms, there is some considerable space for specialized and more nuanced studies. Although greater attention is devoted to multilateralism light, the focus has been to some considerable extent on the mechanisms used by bigger and stronger countries, not as tools by coalitions of the weak. (6) A major strand of literature that traces forms of informal governance does so in a mode of analysis that privileges clubs of power where informality allows for easier backroom negotiations over contested issue areas as well as the implementation of tough regulations that are monitored in the privacy of informal groups, whether on a permanent or temporary ad hoc basis. (7) Well-known groupings such as the Group of 8 (G8), the World Trade Organization Green Rooms, and the Middle East Quartet on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are reflections of these informal groups, which indeed can be effective at achieving their narrow objective of furthering global cooperation. Yet although we have become accustomed to the idea that these contracting parties should have the requisite resources to back up their influence at the table, this approach should not limit our inclination or ability to perceive of alternative arrangements. …

This chapter is devoted to investigating the multifaceted activities carried out by the UN to counter foreign fighters. The phenomenon of foreign fighters has captured the attention of the UN system in relation to the recent events taking place in Syria and Iraq. However, the topic is not new on the UN agenda and it has already been tackled within the framework of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. This burning issue will be analysed and discussed in light of the activities and initiatives carried out by the Security Council and by the General Assembly as well as by other UN entities such as the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre, and the UN Security Council (UNSC) Counter-Terrorism Committee. After providing an overview of the UN framework dealing with counter terrorism, this contribution will focus on the two most recent, and both unanimously adopted, UNSC Resolutions, namely 2170 (2014) and 2178 (2014), which attempt to present a holistic approach to the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters. In particular the latter Resolution, given its ‘legislative’ nature, triggers many questions concerning the far-reaching powers of the UN Security Council, already exercised through the adoption of Resolution 1373 (2001). Such questions and the criticism towards the alleged ultra vires acts of the UN Security Council will be critically addressed in this contribution.

The UN Security Council addressed the issue of due process protection for individuals designated for counter-terrorism sanctions when it created the Office of the Ombudsperson in 2009. However, fundamental rights to due process continued to be denied for those designated for individual UN sanctions for other (non-terrorism) activities, which account for the majority of the individuals and entities currently designated for sanctions by the Security Council. This has created ongoing challenges to the legitimacy of the Council due to its inattention to the rights of individuals designated for sanctions. A significant enhancement of the Focal Point Mechanism first created within the Secretariat in 2006 was made possible with the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2744 in July 2024. This article charts the course of incremental, procedural reform at the Security Council on this issue, identifies core elements of due process, describes recent litigation trends challenging UN designations worldwide, summarizes the core elements of UNSCR 2744, and suggests specific proposals for addressing the remaining legitimacy deficit related to UN sanctions on individuals.

Abstract: The UN Security Council plays a crucial role in maintaining global peace and security. However, the Syrian Civil War and data reveal that the abuse of the veto and the decline in the representativeness and legitimacy of the permanent members hinder its effectiveness. The international community needs to reconsider the powers and structure of the UN Security Council, including reforming the veto system, the permanent seats, and the distribution of powers within the Security Council and other United Nations bodies. Furthermore, this study proposes several reforms, such as limiting the scope of veto use, especially in cases of conflicts threatening international peace, and introducing regional representation to better reflect the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. Additionally, the International Court of Justice should be empowered to interpret the UN Charter, enhancing the role of the Secretariat, and granting the General Assembly greater oversight over the Security Councils actions. These reforms aim to increase the UN Security Councils legitimacy, fairness, and capacity to act decisively in maintaining peace and security, ensuring it remains an effective body in the evolving landscape of international relations.

Since 2006 to 2017 the Security Council has passed a resolution on North Korea's nuclear test act. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that Members of the United Nations agree to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with this Charter. North Korea as a UN member state that obtained the UN Security Council Resolution is obliged to implement the sanctions resolution. However, the sanctions contained in the resolution did not make North Korea stop its nuclear program and it shows North Korea's noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Implications accompanying any denial by North Korea against the UN Security Council resolution which in general affects four fields, namely the fields of economy, politics, defense and international cooperation. In addition to non-military sanctions, the Security Council under chapter VII Article 42 of the UN Charter can impose military sanctions where possible, the Security Council can also impose sanctions through the UN General Assembly on its recommendation to suspend the rights of UN membership) and expulsion of a country from UN membership).

The article examines some aspects of the problems of reforming the United Nations, which is the largest international organization in the world, established after the end of World War II to maintain peace, develop friendly relations and intergovernmental cooperation among member states. The study focuses on the activities of the UN Security Council, which is one of the key organs of the international organization, as it performs the main function of the UN - ensuring international security. A significant feature of this body is that it is empowered to make decisions which are binding on all countries that are members of the organization. It is emphasized that the veto right of permanent member states should act as a stabilizer ensuring the collegial nature of the UN Security Council's activities and adoption of important decisions in the field of international security. It is pointed out that the veto power in the UN Security Council is provided for to avoid counteracting the interests of the founding members of the Organization, but given the global expansion of the United Nations in the second half of the twentieth century, it seems obvious that such a right may impede the achievement of justice and equality of member States. The attention is focused on the inadmissibility of using the veto power not in the interests of maintaining peace and security, but on the basis of the member states' own interests.

Over the last decade there has been an evolving debate both within the United Nations and within the scholarly literature as to whether it would be feasible, appropriate and/or advantageous for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to consider climate change to be within its remit. Given that irreversible global warming is under way and that this will inevitably have multiple global security implications—and indeed, that the Council has to some degree already addressed the issue—such a debate has become anachronistic. What is needed at this stage is nuanced analysis of how this complex policy issue may have already impacted, and may in future impact, the function and functioning of the Council. This article first reviews key variables that need to be taken into account in moving beyond a binary discussion of whether or not the Security Council should consider climate change. It then maps four broad categories of possible UNSC response, spanning from rejection of any involvement through to the Council using its Chapter VII powers and functioning as the peak body in respect of global climate change governance. It then places developments to date within those categories and concludes by considering the prospects for an increased UNSC role in the future

The paper analyses the debates within the UN Security Council on the role of regional organisations in peace operations and examines associated pro and con arguments. The systemisation of the findings is facilitated through the application of SWOT analysis that requires an insight into the unit and system levels of analysis. The first one looks at regional organisations and studies the strengths and the weaknesses that could promote or obscure their greater involvement in peace operations. The second level studies the international political environment that could provide opportunities for greater regional involvement or pose threats (obstacles) to it. The study indicates that there is a clearly established numerical predominance of supporters of greater regional involvement in peace operations over the regio-sceptics. However, the conclusion is that while the permanent members of the UN Security Council continue to endorse such involvement in the field, they will keep avoiding the formalisation and institutionalisation of the role of regional organisations on a political level.

INTRODUCTION. Military interventions in Syria by the US and its allies confirm a tendency in the policy of Western countries to ignore international law and to act in accordance with the “rule of force”, without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Russia, as a state that respects its sovereignty and international law, does not accept this approach. Russia stands for diplomatic dialogue at all venues in order to stop destabilization in international relations, including the confrontation in Syria, and to find proper legal solutions. The article recommends specific options for such solutions.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study relies on such legal sources as the UN Charter, generally recognized principles of international law, UN Security Council resolutions, the Joint Statement of the Presidents of Russia and the United States on Syria of November 11, 2017, the joint press conference of the Presidents of Russia and the United States in Helsinki on July 17, 2018 as well as scientific studies of Russian and foreign researches. The research involved general scientific and comparative legal and historical methods of study.RESEARCH RESULTS. The author concludes that the United States and its allies using military force in Syria act in violation of the UN Charter. Russia, on the contrary, uses its military contingent in Syria in full accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter on the collective self-defense, at the request of the legitimate government of Syria.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author makes a concrete proposal for the search of a peaceful settlement in Syria on the basis of the Joint Statement, which was approved by the Presidents of Russia and the United States in November 11, 2017 following their meeting on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting in Danang, Vietnam. The author advocates that Russian and American experts jointly reconsider main elements of this document and provide an up-dated version with due account of new realities, and submit it to the UN Security Council for the adoption of a consensus resolution that would lay down the international legal framework for a peaceful settlement in Syria.