Assessing the influence of the Responsibility to Protect on the UN Security Council during the Arab Spring

This article challenges those perspectives which assert first, that the Security Council’s engagement with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) during the Arab Spring evidences a generally positive trend, and second, that the response to the Arab Spring, particularly Syria, highlights the need for veto restraint. With respect to the first point, the evidence presented in this article suggests that the manner in which R2P has been employed by the Security Council during this period evidences three key trends: first, a willingness to invoke R2P only in the context of Pillar I; second, a pronounced lack of consensus surrounding Pillar III; and third, the persistent prioritisation of national interests over humanitarian concerns. With respect to veto restraint, this article argues that there is no evidence that this idea will have any significant impact on decision-making at the Security Council; the Council’s response to the Arab Spring suggests that national interests continue to trump humanitarian need.

The legitimacy of the UN Security Council: evidence from recent General Assembly debates

Existing research on the legitimacy of the UN Security Council is conceptual or theoretical, for the most part, as scholars tend to make legitimacy assessments with reference to objective standards. Whether UN member states perceive the Security Council as legitimate or illegitimate has yet to be investigated systematically; nor do we know whether states care primarily about the Council's compliance with its legal mandate, its procedures, or its effectiveness. To address this gap, our article analyzes evaluative statements made by states in UN General Assembly debates on the Security Council, for the period 1991–2009. In making such statements, states confer legitimacy on the Council or withhold legitimacy from it. We conclude the following: First, the Security Council suffers from a legitimacy deficit because negative evaluations of the Council by UN member states far outweigh positive ones. Nevertheless, the Council does not find itself in an intractable legitimacy crisis because it still enjoys a rudimentary degree of legitimacy. Second, the Council's legitimacy deficit results primarily from states' concerns regarding the body's procedural shortcomings. Misgivings as regards shortcomings in performance rank second. Whether or not the Council complies with its legal mandate has failed to attract much attention at all.

The UN Security Council and the question of humanitarian intervention in Darfur

This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of humanitarian intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed.

An Analysis on the Decline in the Authoritative Powers of the Papacy and its Application to Challenges to Authoritative Powers Faced By the Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council

The organizational authority of the Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church and the permanent membership of the UN Security Council are unique from institutions that are commonly compared with the UN, like the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations, in that these institutional organs possessed strong authoritative and veto powers. Both organs also owe their strong authority during their founding to a need for stability: The Papacy after the crippling of Western Roman Empire and the P-5 to deal with the insecurities of the post-WWII world. While the P-5 still possesses similar authoritative powers within the Council as it did after WWII, the historical authoritative powers of the Papacy within the Church was debilitated to such a degree that by the time of the Reformation in Europe, condemnations of practices within the Church itself were not effective. This paper will analyze major challenges to the authoritative powers of the Papacy, from the crowning of Charlemagne to the beginning of the Reformation, and compare the analysis to challenges affecting the authoritative powers of the P-5 since its creation. From research conducted thus far, I hypothesize that common themes affecting the authoritative powers of the P-5 and the Papacy would include: major changes in the institutions organization (i.e. the Avignon Papacy and Japan’s bid to become a permanent member); the decline in power of actors supporting the institutional organ (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire and the P-5 members); and ideological clashes affecting the institution’s normative power (i.e. the Great Western Schism and Cold War politics).

An Analysis on the Decline in the Authoritative Powers of the Papacy and its Application to Challenges to Authoritative Powers Faced By the Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council

The organizational authority of the Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church and the permanent membership of the UN Security Council are unique from institutions that are commonly compared with the UN, like the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations, in that these institutional organs possessed strong authoritative and veto powers. Both organs also owe their strong authority during their founding to a need for stability: The Papacy after the crippling of Western Roman Empire and the P-5 to deal with the insecurities of the post-WWII world. While the P-5 still possesses similar authoritative powers within the Council as it did after WWII, the historical authoritative powers of the Papacy within the Church was debilitated to such a degree that by the time of the Reformation in Europe, condemnations of practices within the Church itself were not effective. This paper will analyze major challenges to the authoritative powers of the Papacy, from the crowning of Charlemagne to the beginning of the Reformation, and compare the analysis to challenges affecting the authoritative powers of the P-5 since its creation. From research conducted thus far, I hypothesize that common themes affecting the authoritative powers of the P-5 and the Papacy would include: major changes in the institutions organization (i.e. the Avignon Papacy and Japan’s bid to become a permanent member); the decline in power of actors supporting the institutional organ (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire and the P-5 members); and ideological clashes affecting the institution’s normative power (i.e. the Great Western Schism and Cold War politics).

Gazes at the monster : courts, NGOs, and the UN Security Council

Tese (doutorado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Direito, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito, 2016.

France and the United Kingdom in the Security Council

The chapter examines the role of the UK and France in the Security Council during the last 20 years.

Putting the Canal on the map: Panamanian agenda-setting and the 1973 Security Council meetings

In the early 1970s, Panama’s negotiations with the United States over the status of the Panama Canal ground to a standstill. General Omar Torrijos had rejected treaties left unratified by previous governments only to receive a less generous offer from the Nixon administration. Realizing that the talks were being ignored in Washington, the Panamanian government worked to internationalize the previously bilateral issue, creating and exploiting a high-profile forum: Extraordinary meetings of the UN Security Council in March 1973 held in Panama City. In those meetings, Panama isolated the United States in order to raise the issue’s profile and amplify the costs of leaving the matter unsettled. Using underutilized Panamanian sources, this article examines that meeting, the succeeding progress, and the effect of this early stage on the final negotiations several years later. The case also illustrates how, during the unsettled international environment of the 1970s, a small state utilized international organizations to obtain attention and support for its most important cause.

The relationship between Security and Health: A New Paradigm for the United Nations Security Council?

One of the aspects related to biolaw is that related to security and health. In other words, using the expression of relevant authorities on this subject, “the securitization of health” and, those situations connected with the Security Council labour in the last decades, may constitute an interesting subject. Beginning with the role of the UN blue helmets in many countries where the expansion of HIV/AIDS is usual, followed by the expansion of some diseases in Haiti, together with the Ebola “crisis” in 2014 and connected with the efforts of the World Health Organization to fight against the zika...what is the role played by the United Nations Security Council on this field, trying to establish a relationship between security and health?