Leadership for Peace
Expected Council Action
In September, Slovenia plans to convene a high-level open debate on “Leadership for peace” under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item. Robert Golob, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, is expected to chair the meeting, which is the signature event of his country’s Council presidency. UN Secretary General António Guterres is expected to brief. The meeting is designed to generate ideas for addressing some of the most intractable peace and security challenges facing the Council, including Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, among others.
Background
In recent years, the number of conflicts and conflict-related deaths have been on the rise. The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) 2024 Global Peace Index reported that the number of active conflicts in the world (56) is at its highest level since 1945. In a 2023 study covering 1946-2022, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) observed that conflict-related deaths were at their highest level in nearly three decades. And in 2023, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), over 117 million people were forcibly displaced because of violence, conflict, persecution, and human rights violations, among other reasons. That is more than double the 51.2 million forcibly displaced a decade earlier in 2013.
The Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, has struggled to cope with this challenging peace and security environment and to uphold the principles of the UN Charter. It has been unable to gain much traction in addressing many of the conflicts on its agenda—for example, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine—notwithstanding the significant time and energy it devotes to several of these issues.
Contentious negotiations, frequent vetoes, and a high percentage of non-unanimous resolutions have been features of its work in recent years. In the nearly eight years since the start of 2017, 30 resolutions have been vetoed; this is the same number of vetoed resolutions in the 22 years between 1994 and 2016. Last year, 70 percent of resolutions were adopted unanimously—a slightly higher percentage than the 67 percent in 2022 but well below the first two decades of the post-Cold War period, when annual percentages of unanimous adoptions frequently exceeded 90 percent.
Key Issues and Options
An overarching key issue is whether Council members can develop the trust and understanding needed to strike compromises and reach agreement on difficult peace and security issues. Reducing tensions over sanctions regimes and the mandates of peace operations—while making these instruments more effective—could be a springboard toward more constructive Council engagement on many files.
Another key issue is how well the open debate galvanises support among the wider UN membership for a more effective Security Council. Member state interventions at the meeting may provide a good indication of their perceptions of the Council’s work and their ideas for strengthening the UN’s peace and security efforts in general.
One option for the Council would be to consider a presidential statement that:
- affirms the centrality of the UN Charter in international law and urges member states to adhere to its norms and principles;
- urges member states to resolve their disputes peacefully, drawing on tools such as negotiations, mediation, conciliations (among others) outlined in Article 33 of the Charter;
- underscores the importance of abiding by international humanitarian and human rights law in the conduct of war while recognising the 75th anniversary of the August 1949 Geneva Conventions; and
- encourages efforts to reinvigorate and find common ground about long-standing Council tools such as peace operations and sanctions.
Another option could be for Slovenia to produce a chair’s summary capturing the major themes of the open debate.
Council Dynamics
The Council is more divided than it has been at any point in the post-Cold War era. In some cases, veto-wielding permanent members have strong strategic interests in situations the Council grapples with or may even be parties to the disputes being discussed, severely limiting the Council’s room to play a meaningful role. Gaza, Mali, and Ukraine have been notable examples in recent years.
Members also differ on the use of some of the Council’s tools, including peacekeeping, sanctions and legal accountability. China and Russia tend to emphasise the importance of extending state authority and promoting security sector reform in peacekeeping mandates while several others typically highlight the need to protect civilians and promote women’s participation in peace processes.
The sanctions divide is particularly stark between Western countries, on the one hand, and China, Russia, and African countries, on the other. Western countries often maintain that arms embargoes and targeted sanctions, such as assets freezes and travel bans, are vital tools in mitigating violence and supporting the implementation of peace agreements. While China, Russia, and the Council’s African members recognise that sanctions can be a useful Council tool, they point to countries that have remained under Council sanctions for several years as evidence that sanctions are insufficiently adjusted to account for progress.
The Council is strongly divided on the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ecuador, France, Guyana, Japan, Malta, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the UK are state parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Algeria, China, Mozambique, Russia, and the US are not.
