Emerging challenges in achieving consensus: the future of the Security Council and the implications for human rights – By Alexander An

Traditionally, the Security Council’s main priority has been to maintain peace and security in the international community by determining what conduct threatens international peace, and react accordingly. As the key organ in the United Nations charged with maintaining the new world order, it faces new challenges in fulfilling its objectives.

This article will argue that some of the various challenges are the continuation of the status quo regarding the geographic representation in the permanent members of the council and the permanent veto, as well as the emergence of non-state actors. The consequences of inaction include that human rights overall will suffer, and that decisive and consistent cooperation on these matters are necessary to ensure human rights are upheld.

Continuing the Status Quo

The composition of the Security Council, whereby the permanent members continue to maintain an absolute veto over any resolution proposed at the Security Council, is troublesome for two main reasons, namely the power given by the veto and the geopolitical bias present. If cooperative action outweighs self interest in terms of net benefits, then the wisdom of the absolute veto will need to be addressed by all of the Permanent 5. The introduction of a qualified veto, similar to the system employed in the European legislative process, would give the global community a more equitable and democratic means to ensure international peace, and by extension the protection of human rights.

Furthermore, changing the composition of the Permanent 5 to reflect new emerging powers like India and representation of other regions such as Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, would help to keep in check other world powers, maintain international peace, and protect human rights on a global basis, rather than in instances where world powers’ interests are not at stake.

Various examples of how this frustrating combination has degraded human rights across the world range from Russia’s border conflict with Ukraine, China’s treatment of its Uyghur population and the United States’ conduct in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in stark contrast to clear cases where the Security Council has intervened to protect human rights indirectly, where threats to international peace and security are present.

Examples like authorised intervention in the Yugoslavian Wars, the on-going civil war in the Central African Republic and peacekeeping missions backed by Security Council mandates in Namibia, East Timor and the Western Sahara to ensure right to exercise self-determination is not subverted, all demonstrate cases where the Security Council can act effectively where human rights are at stake. So if the link between violations of human rights and conduct threatening international peace is not a problem, which is hypothesised by the Council’s unfettered ability to determine what it considers a threat to international peace, it is seemingly the interests of the Permanent 5 which determine when intervention is necessary.

The Rise of Non-State Actors

The creation of the United Nations was presupposed upon states being the dominant actors in the international community, but over time the rise of nonstate actors has become apparent, evoking the classic realist versus constructivist debate. It will be necessary for the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole to address non-state actors, and how both bodies are able to effectively address their actions.

The International Court of Justice’s position in this sphere has been clear; conduct by ‘true non-state actors’ is not enough to justify the use of force backed by the Security Council, but they are subject to unilateral state action, including sanctions and court litigation. However, unilateral state action is not universal, and non-state actors may find refuge in other states who are willing to shelter or turn a blind eye to their actions. As will be discussed, their growing power either militarily or otherwise is of concern for human rights. As a result, there will be a need to adopt a global consensus, especially from the Security Council, to ensure that these actors do not subvert the current world order.

As the Repertoire noted in a review of proceedings from 2016-17, the Council held five meetings on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nonstate actors, and was briefed upon current priorities of the biological weapons and disruptive technologies. These two tools are not only extremely dangerous to state actors but are clearly against states’ interests, in that they equalise the power between the two types of actors, allowing for states to be threatened by their use.

Clear examples of how they have caused harm to states and their civilian populations is apparent in Syria, where the Islamic State used Chlorine Gas in at least two instances according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Convention and the UN Joint Investigative Mechanism. Corporations also now have a largely influential role in international affairs, and whilst they do not usually use weapons to further their objectives, corporations have the potential to instigate international crises or perpetuate human rights violations regardless of intention.

Practices like modern slavery, trading and cooperating with states who abuse human rights, and exploiting natural resources represent conduct which directly impacts all states’ interests. Taken as a whole, the Security Council will need to address this, to ensure a consensus amongst member states is achieved on how non-state actors are regulated, and ensure that their power is kept in check by the global community.

Conclusion

To believe that consensus could be achieved in the Security Council in the near future would be sceptical without a dramatic change in the balance of power amongst world powers. The more pressing issue of non-state actors will more likely than not be achieved by consensus, compared to the composition and power of the Permanent 5, given the stakes involved. Theoretically, consensus on human rights would be in the best interest of the Permanent 5, but history states otherwise.