UN Security Council Reform—The Council Must Lead by Example

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 scale of globally significant events that took place after the Second World War and the victory over fascism, have radically changed the existing world order. These changes have affected not only the political map of the world, but also the general climate of the planet conditioned by the creation and subsequent development of a new universal platform for international cooperation of states - the United Nations, which is not only takes central place in the system of interstate organizations, but also plays an exceptional role in today's international political development. In light of recent events - the aggravation of existing and emerging international conflicts, the threat of international terrorism through Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, the large-scale and flagrant violations of human rights as a result of the activities of the latter - the issue of improvement of the UN and its adapting to severe changes in the international political landscape has become urgent. Additional tasks appear in front of the Organization. Still, in order to be solved, these tasks require some improvements of operational mechanisms and even creation of new ones. The question of reforming the organization has arisen. There have been a discussion on the urgent need for changes within the Organization, but at the beginning of the new millennium, the issue has become particularly relevant. It is obvious that in the current, very complex international environment the main focus of attention in this process should be on reforming the UN Security Council as the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. The article discusses possible models for improving Organization's activities, namely, the expansion of its membership, the problems of working methods, including the use of the institute of veto power, as well as the analysis of the position of member states on the issue of UN Security Council reform. In conclusion, the author highlights the lack of alternative solutions to existing problems through multilateral diplomacy and the special role of the UN in this process as a unique international platform for cooperation of the international community of states.

Since the UN’s initial enlargement in 1963, reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) has been voiced by member states periodically. Unfortunately, half a century later, text-based negotiations unde...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

United Nations, Report of the Panel of Experts on Violations of Security Council Sanctions Against UNITA. Document S/2000/203, New York, 10 March 2000 (available online at www.un.org/News/dh/latest/angolareport_eng.htm), also called the Fowler Report. Targeted Financial Sanctions: A Manual for Design and Implementation. Contributions from the Interlaken (Providence: Watson Institute, Brown University, 2001) (available online at www.smartsanctions.se). Design and Implementation of Arms Embargoes and Travel and Aviation Related Sanctions--Results of the Bonn-Berlin Process (Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion, 2001) (available online at www.smartsanctions.de). Making Targeted Sanctions Effective: Guidelines for Implementation of UN Policy Options (Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, 2003) (available online at www.smartsanctions.se). David Cortright and George A. Lopez with Linda Gerber, Sanctions and the Search for Security (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002), 249 pp. The former head of the Strategic Planning Unit at the United Nations Secretariat, Andy Mack, reports that he tried to find out, in the late 1990s, what the Secretariat and member states knew about the effectiveness of UN sanctions. (1) There were no reports on experiences with sanctions, no administrative setup to preserve institutional memory, and no implementation structures. At the same time, the UN Security Council was sanctions-happy. Since 1990, a total of fourteen sanctions cases have been mandated by the UN Security Council in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, (2) with only two cases mandated (Southern Rhodesia and South Africa) during the previous forty-five years. The absence of intellectual and institutional foundations for the UN's sanctions policy partly resulted from a lack of relevant experience, but it was also the result of deliberate policy by member states, particularly those making decisions in the Security Council. In the early 1990s, they were quite happy to mandate comprehensive sanctions on Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Haiti, without having any real knowledge about their effects. They also had few reservations about deciding on measures, such as arms embargoes, in the absence of institutional structures at the UN to help to implement, or even monitor, them. Comprehensive sanctions soon came under strong criticism, from academics, humanitarian groups, and UN member governments alike. As predicted by earlier research, sanctions hurt the population without having much influence on decisionmakers. The naive theory of sanctions, that economic pain in the targeted countries will somehow result in gain by those imposing sanctions, had little empirical support. (3) While political goals were seldom achieved, humanitarian effects of comprehensive sanctions were often very real. (4) The reports from Iraq were particularly devastating. (5) The population was clearly suffering while the inner circle of leaders around Saddam Hussein thrived. Baghdad was quite successful in blaming the UN for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, both within the country and worldwide. A deep and growing rift developed over Security Council sanctions on Iraq, and sanctions in general. Governments deeply concerned over the Iraqi sanctions, including France and Russia, resolved never to be in such a situation again. This implied opposing any future comprehensive sanctions regimes that would give a permanent member of the Security Council veto power against ending them. The strong effects of some sanctions on the general population, particularly in the case of Iraq, were one central element of the UN sanctions crisis. The lack of any impact on the targets in a large number of sanctions was another. The stand-alone arms embargoes, in particular, seemed like a bad joke. Warring parties had little difficulty in obtaining the weapons they wanted. …

The UN Security Council has authorized Member States to adopt unprecedented measures to combat piracy in Somalia. While authorizing all necessary measures against pirates, the UN Security Council has deemed it necessary to indicate that such measures must be consistent with international humanitarian and human rights law (Res. 1851 of 16 December 2008). The contextual application of these two distinct branches of law to anti-piracy operations gives the individuals concerned, such as the hostages or the suspected pirates, major protection for their rights. However, there is a problem of coordination between international humanitarian law and human rights. Jurisprudence and the practice of non-judicial control mechanisms have tried to define the relationship between the system of human rights and humanitarian issues. This article aims to analyze the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights, and to determine, through the interaction of both systems, the level of protection that will apply during anti-piracy operations.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) faces significant challenges in addressing genocide due to the veto power granted to its permanent members under Article 27(3) of the UN Charter. This research analyzes the impact of veto power on the UNSC’s accountability and effectiveness, focusing on the conflicts in Syria and Palestine. Through normative legal research and a comparative approach, the study characterizes the crimes committed by the Assad regime and the Israeli government as genocide using Genocide Watch’s Ten Stages framework. It then examines how Russia and the United States have prioritized geopolitical interests over humanitarian concerns, enabling impunity and obstructing international legal accountability. Distinct from previous works, this study advances a legal critique grounded in jus cogens norms and the UN Charter’s purposes and principles. It proposes reforms such as a supermajority override and amendment of Article 27 to empower non-permanent members and strengthen the UNSC’s capacity to respond effectively to genocide.

In contrast to the common perception that the United Nations is, or should become, a system of collective security, this paper advances the proposition that the UN Security Council embodies a necessarily selective approach. Analysis of its record since 1945 suggests that the Council cannot address all security threats effectively. The reasons for this include not only the veto power of the five permanent members, but also the selectivity of all UN member states: their unwillingness to provide forces for peacekeeping or other purposes except on a case-by-case basis, and their reluctance to involve the Council in certain conflicts to which they are parties, or which they perceive as distant, complex and resistant to outside involvement. The Council's selectivity is generally seen as a problem, even a threat to its legitimacy. Yet selectivity, which is rooted in prudence and in the UN Charter itself, has some virtues. Acknowledging the necessary limitations within which the Security Council operates, this paper evaluates the Council's achievements in tackling the problem of war since 1945. In doing so, it sheds light on the division of labour among the Council, regional security bodies and states, and offers a pioneering contribution to public and governmental understanding of the UN's past, present and future roles.

In contrast to the common perception that the United Nations is, or should become, a system of collective security, this paper advances the proposition that the UN Security Council embodies a necessarily selective approach. Analysis of its record since 1945 suggests that the Council cannot address all security threats effectively. The reasons for this include not only the veto power of the five permanent members, but also the selectivity of all UN member states: their unwillingness to provide forces for peacekeeping or other purposes except on a case‐by‐case basis, and their reluctance to involve the Council in certain conflicts to which they are parties, or which they perceive as distant, complex and resistant to outside involvement. The Council's selectivity is generally seen as a problem, even a threat to its legitimacy. Yet selectivity, which is rooted in prudence and in the UN Charter itself, has some virtues. Acknowledging the necessary limitations within which the Security Council operates, this paper evaluates the Council's achievements in tackling the problem of war since 1945. In doing so, it sheds light on the division of labour among the Council, regional security bodies and states, and offers a pioneering contribution to public and governmental understanding of the UN's past, present and future roles.

Focusing on the European Union, this contribution analyses the limits and opportunities of regionalism (and regional seats in particular) for breaking the stalemate on the reform of the United Nations Security Council. It explores the realities of effective multilateralism by building upon the notions of internal and external institutional reform. It argues that regional dynamics are not without value, but leaves few reasons for great enthusiasm. Most likely, a common position among the EU member states would mean an important step forwards. Yet past experiences show that this will be no sinecure, even in light of the UN's landmark jubilee.