Situating the Accountability of the UN Security Council: Between Liberal-Legal and Political ‘Styles’ of Global Constitutionalism?

‘Accountability’ is the international legal term du jour. The concept is omnipresent in contemporary discussions about the UN Security Council in particular. From the lack of due process guarantees for individuals implicated in its counter-terrorism sanctions regime, to the (in)compatibility of Council authorized uses of force with international human rights and humanitarian law, no aspect of the Council’s recent practice has been immune from an accountability critique. 

Driven by the context in which it has emerged, the turn to accountability is seemingly prompted by a felt desire among international lawyers to constrain the arbitrary use of the Council’s considerable powers. However, beyond this felt desire, the concept lacks a robust theoretical foregrounding, both on its own terms and in relation to existential developments in international law, BEN L. MURPHY writes in the journal Global Constitutionalism.

In an attempt to remedy this, MURPHY, in his article titled ‘Situating the accountability of the UN Security Council: Between liberal-legal and political ‘styles’ of global constitutionalism?’, situates the turn to accountability as a product of the broader turn to ‘constitutionalist’ thinking in international law. 

Specifically, he suggests that mainstream approaches resonate with a particular ‘liberal-legalist style’ of global constitutionalism. 

“From both an etymological and epistemological perspective, however, I argue that this prevailing style offers an incomplete sense of accountability,” MURPHY states. 

The article introduces the dichotomy of ‘liberal-legal’ and more overtly ‘political’ styles of global constitutionalism as a heuristic device in order to offer a broader conception of accountability in the Security Council context. 

“Political constitutionalism, I believe, offers important insights that will allow us to perceive and critique the Security Council in new ways.”

MURPHY, B. (2020). Situating the accountability of the UN Security Council: Between liberal-legal and political ‘styles’ of global constitutionalism? Global Constitutionalism, 1-35. doi:10.1017/S2045381720000222

COVID-19, the UN, and Dispersed Global Health Security

The response to COVID-19 demonstrates an inclusive and dispersed form of global health security that is less reliant on the UN Security Council or the World Health Organization (WHO). 

While WHO remains central to fighting the pandemic, the dispersed global health security addressing the crisis is inclusive of the wider UN system, civil society, and epistemic communities in global health. 

Writing in the special issue of the journal Ethics and International Issues on “The United Nations at Seventy-Five: Looking Back to Look Forward,” SOPHIE HARMAN, in an essay titled “COVID-19, the UN, and Dispersed Global Health Security” argues that instead of facing crisis or criticism like WHO, this inclusive and dispersed form of global health security provides mechanisms of resilience and support to the UN at the height of global political tensions surrounding COVID-19.

Harman, S. (2020). COVID-19, the UN, and Dispersed Global Health Security. Ethics & International Affairs, 34(3), 373-378. doi:10.1017/S0892679420000398

UN Peace Operations in a Multipolar Order: Building Peace Through the Rule of Law and Bottom-up Approaches

UN peace operations need a new peacebuilding agenda that acknowledges both the transboundary nature of conflict drivers and the multipolar nature of the global order. 
This means casting aside the current stabilization approach, but also abandoning the pursuit of liberal peacebuilding of the unipolar era, KARI M. OSLAND & MATEJA PETER write in the journal Contemporary Security Policy. 
Such a conflict transformation agenda would require UN peace operations to prioritize the rule of law and bottom-up approaches, thus creating the potential to be embraced by a much broader range of member states, they write in the article titled ‘UN peace operations in a multipolar order: Building peace through the rule of law and bottom-up approaches’
“In this article, we bring liberal peacebuilding critiques into a discussion with debates on the nature of the global order. Liberal peacebuilding critiques are rooted in the bottom-up problematization of international interventions and show what kind of peacebuilding is desirable. Conversely, the debates on the multipolar nature of the global order expose the top-down constraints as to what kind of peacebuilding is feasible.”

Kari M. Osland & Mateja Peter (2021): UN peace operations in a multipolar order: Building peace through the rule of law and bottom-up approaches, Contemporary Security Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166

Future of UN Peace Operations: Principled Adaptation Through Phases of Contraction, Moderation, and Renewal

CEDRIC DE CONING considers the future of United Nations peace operations through a complexity theory lens in the journal Contemporary Security Policy.

In the short-term, peacekeeping will have to adapt to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fall-out of the Trump presidency, while in the medium-term it will go through a phase of uncertainty and turbulence due to geopolitical power shifts in the global order, he writes in ‘The future of UN peace operations: Principled adaptation through phases of contraction, moderation, and renewal’.

In the longer-term, the author states, peacekeeping will have to adapt to a new multipolar global order characterized by coexistence, and a changing security landscape shaped by, among others, climate change, urbanization, and new technologies. Throughout these contraction, moderation, and adjustment phases, UN peacekeeping is likely to be guided by a principled adaptive approach, that allows it to adapt to the realities of the moment whilst staying true to its core form and identity. As a result, UN peacekeeping is likely to remain one of the most visible symbols of global governance and international cooperation.

UN peace operations have shown a remarkable resilient capacity to continuously adapt to new challenges over the past 70 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will not continue to do so into the future, the author concludes. 

Despite the significant changes currently underway in the global order, and the uncertainties that come with such turbulence, most countries and regional blocs, such as the African Union, European Union, the Nordic region, and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), agree on and repeatedly emphasize the importance of the UN, and UN peace operations, as the centerpiece of global governance and a rules-based multilateral order.

“Despite the short-, medium-, and longer-term changes UN peace operations are likely to undergo, UN peacekeeping is likely to remain the flagship enterprise of the UN. This is because UN peacekeeping has become one of the most remarkable achievements, and thus symbols, of the post-World War II multilateral system of global governance.”

Cedric de Coning (2021) The future of UN peace operations: Principled adaptation through phases of contraction, moderation, and renewal, Contemporary Security Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021

The UN Security Council and Transitional Justice

The United Nations Security Council is an insufficiently understood source of support for transitional justice interventions on the ground. 

In the best-case scenarios, the Council has assisted national and local endeavors by amplifying the voices of domestic stakeholders, exerting pressure over recalcitrant actors, guarding the integrity of existing peace agreements from internal attacks, leveraging resources, and mandating supportive mechanisms. 

In other cases, the Security Council’s support has backfired, frustrating national efforts or eroding local capacity. 

Given these contrasting outcomes, a new report titled, ‘The UN Security Council and Transitional Justice’, edited by REBECCA BRUBAKER, seeks to provide a preliminary look, across five case studies, at the conditions under which support from the Security Council – as one of many actors in the UN’s transitional justice architecture – can positively impact transitional justice efforts on the ground.

Published by United Nations University’s Center for Policy Research, the report is written for a general audience, though should also be of interest to transitional justice specialists and those interested in the role of the Security Council.

This was a deliberate choice given a general finding through the research that outside the community of transitional justice theorists and practitioners, too little is known about this field. 

Diverging understandings of the definition and scope of transitional justice permeate both the chamber of the Security Council as well as key corridors of the UN Secretariat and the broader UN system.

To this end, it was thought useful to frame the findings from this exploratory project as part of a broader discussion on transitional justice, to help foster greater understanding and a more coherent, coordinated approach within the UN system.

This cross-cutting paper is divided into five parts. The first part offers an overview of the concept of transitional justice and its core components and then situates transitional justice concepts in the broader practice of international law. 

The second section provides a brief introduction to transitional justice and the UN system, examining the primary entities charged with supporting its implementation. 

The third section zooms in on one particular and, as of yet, understudied UN entity with regards to transitional justice – the Security Council. Drawing on recent work, it briefly touches on how the Council’s approach to transitional justice has evolved over the last three decades and the various debates within the Council on transitional justice’s relation to the Council’s broader work. 

The fourth section, as the core of the report, looks at the impact of Security Council strategy and actions on transitional justice efforts on the ground. Drawing from the case studies in this report, it describes the mechanisms used, the challenges faced, and the factors that facilitated impact in these cases. 

The paper concludes with a number of recommendations for the Security Council, the Secretariat, and transitional justice advocates as they think through whether, when and how to engage Council members on these issues going forward.

The paper is designed as a preliminary look at the issue of impact with the goal of sparking discussion and further research. The report and the adjoining case studies – which were completed in August 2020 – are a first attempt at identifying issues that deserve further deliberation.

The UN Security Council and Transitional Justice - UNU Collections

Increasing the Impact of the EU at the UN

With major powers undermining the rule-based international system, a global pandemic and the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, the EU faces new challenges in the UN. At the same time, these shifting dynamics also create a unique opportunity to evaluate and strengthen the EU’s performance in the UN. 

In a new study published by Konrad Adenauer Foundation New York, SEBASTIAN BORCHMEYER AND WASIM MIR looks at how the EU and its Member States can build on this historic moment to further increase its impact in the UN.

Covid-19, coupled with recent geopolitical changes, have put the United Nations under unprecedented strain. The future of the UN is more precarious than at any time in its 75-year history. The European Union and its Member States have played a pivotal role in supporting the UN since its creation. 

A rule-based international system, with the UN at its core, is central to delivering the EU’s foreign policy objectives. An effective EU presence in the UN also helps ensure a stronger UN. Closer coordination, led by the EU Delegation, has increased the EU’s performance in the UN in New York over the last eight years but there is still more to do. 

One the one hand, the EU has become a strong voice and a node of influence across the UN System. On the other hand, because the UN remains primarily an organization centered around Member States, there are limitations on how the EU can operate and engage in the UN; this cannot be changed by the EEAS or EU Member States acting alone.

With major powers undermining the rule-based international system, and the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, the EU faces new challenges in the UN. At the same time, these shifting dynamics also create a unique opportunity to evaluate and strengthen the EU’s performance in the UN. 

The study looks at how the EU and its Member States can build on this historic moment to further increase its impact in the UN. Specifically, the paper analyzes how the EU and its Member States operate in the United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council as well as how they interact with the UN Secretariat and New York-based UN Funds and Programmes. 

The authors make specific practical recommendations on how to enhance the EU’s performance in each fora with a view to generating an in-depth discussion amongst EU Member States. They hope that EU Heads of Mission in New York collectively consider these recommendations and identify those that can be implemented immediately and those that require further deliberation.

Increasing the Impact of the European Union at the United Nations in New York

The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention

In this paper, RICHARD GOWAN explores how members of the United Nations Security Council can design and implement preventive diplomatic strategies in response to emerging, escalating and acute crises. 

The Council’s behaviour in crisis situations is often reactive and far from strategic. Council members regularly struggle with (i) uncertainty over conflict dynamics; (ii) divergent national interests; and (iii) the lack of clear policy options for managing a situation. 

These limitations reflect not only the inherently chancy nature of conflict prevention – which is always an uncertain business – but also the political limitations of the Council as a factious intergovernmental body. These limits mean that the Council is often only a supporting player, or not a player at all, in preventive efforts led by States or regional organizations. 

The paper, published by the United Nations University Center for Policy Research, provides options for building a degree of diplomatic coherence around a set of goals within the Council and with other actors, and how the Council can engage directly with actors in a conflict.

The Security Council and Conflict Prevention - UNU Collections