The Powers of the President of the UN Security Council: The Lessons We Can Learn

THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL: THE LESSONS WE CAN LEARN FROM IRELAND’S 2021 PRESIDENCY

Alysia Cloake

Introduction

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains the most powerful organ of the UN and on the 1 September 2021, it was Ireland’s turn to lead it. During its presidency, Ireland oversaw the response of the UNSC on several issues such as the developing humanitarian crises in Yemen and Syria, and the safety of women and girls in Afghanistan. Despite the usual internal barriers, Ireland succeeded in facilitating the adoption of five resolutions.1 However, the presidency operates on a rotating basis and for only a month-long period, which arguably limits the impact a country can have during its presidency. Analysing the position of the President of the UNSC, as well as the achievements of Ireland’s September presidency, this article examines how powerful the president of the UNSC is and whether Ireland was successful in this role.

The Presidency of the United Nations Security Council

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the UNSC has broad powers concerning the maintenance of international peace and security, where the resulting decisions of the Council are binding on the UN Member States. The UNSC exercises legislative, judicial and executive powers2, making it one of the most important organs of the UN. Rule 18 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure stipulates that each member of the UNSC will hold the presidency for the entirety of one calendar month.3 The President of the Council will have several duties, including but not limited to representing the UNSC to other UN organs and leading the general meetings of the

1 Ross Fitzpatrick, ‘Ireland at the Helm: Assessing Ireland’s Presidency of the UN Security Council’ (2021) The Institute of International & European Affairs <https://www.iiea.com/images/uploads/resources/Ireland-at-the-Helm.pdf> accessed 3 March 2022. 2 Devon Whittle, ‘The Limits of Legality and the United Nations Security Council: Applying the Extra-Legal Measures Model to Chapter VII Action’ (2015) 26(3) European Journal of International Law 671, 672. 3 UN Security Council Handbook; A User’s Guide to Practice and Procedure (2019) 28. 148

UNSC.4 During its presidency, the country holding the office is responsible for overseeing any developing crises and leading the Council in response to them.

The power of the President is not without limitations. While the President may set the agenda of the Security Council and facilitate the success of resolutions in line with that agenda, they are still dependent on the votes of the other Council members. For a vote to pass it must reach the requisite nine affirmative votes5. Increasingly, however, the permanent five members of the Council, being China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, have dominated the decision-making process. This is due in part to the veto power given to these members which in turn grants them a significant amount of influence over decisions of the Council. Therefore, the largest difference between the five permanent members and the other elected ten is concerns the voting structure which, by nature of the veto power, enables the permanent five to individually disallow a resolution6. The veto power is derived from Article 27 of the UN Charter and since its inception, this power has been met with considerable controversy. For example, China’s willingness to protect Sudan through the use of its veto during the 2010s was attributed to the country’s oil interests within Sudan.7 These events showed the potential for a member of the permanent five to use its veto power for commercial gain.8 Ultimately, this veto has afforded the permanent five with a form of institutional power over the elected members.

This dominance in decision-making processes is also increased by the advantages that come with the nature of permanency. Institutional memory, relationships, loyalty and general knowledge of the informal working methods of the Council has placed the five members in a superior position.9 While these five members may not always exercise their veto power, the threat of it may be enough to help shape resolutions in line with their desires. This is often referred to as an ‘informal veto’.10 An example of this was during the 2019 UNSC debate regarding a resolution on Women, Peace and Security,

4 ibid. 5 Jess Gifkins, ‘Beyond the Veto: Roles in UN Security Council Decision-Making’ (2021) 27(1) Global Governance. 6 ibid. 7 Kenneth Anderson, ‘United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as the Talking Shop of the Nations’ (2009) 10(1) Chicago Journal of International Law 89. 8 ibid. 9 Gifkins (n 5). 10 ibid.

the US threatened to veto the draft resolution until the provisions on sexual and reproductive health for the survivors of sexual violence were removed.11

The resulting dominance of these five members limits the power of elected members when it comes to negotiations. O’Neill concludes that a fair approximation, as far as voting is concerned, is that the Security Council has five members.12 This has led many to question the legitimacy of those elected members and their basic power to lead during their term. The veto has prevented urgent action in extreme circumstances such as the response to the developing situation in Syria in February 2012, where a resolution authorising action was vetoed by Russia and China13. Many have considered this power to be a contradiction to the main principle of the UN, notably the ‘sovereign equality of all states’ as according to the Charter.14

Ireland’s Presidency of the United Nations Security Council 2021

Bearing in mind the challenges discussed in the first part of this article, how successful can we consider Ireland’s September presidency to be? The impact of the internal politics of the Security Council may have lessened Ireland’s power in this position, but considerable progress was made concerning areas such as UN peacekeeping and the emerging crisis in Afghanistan.

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Simon Coveney chaired a Security Council briefing on the situation in Afghanistan which resulted in the adoption of a resolution that extended the mandate of the UN Mission in Afghanistan until March 2022.15 This resolution would ensure the presence of the UN in the country for at least another six months and offer greater protection to those whose lives have been upturned by the reemergence of the Taliban. One of the key successes of Ireland was its leadership of the negotiations regarding a landmark UNSC resolution on Peacekeeping Transitions.16 Reached by a consensus of all the Security Council members, this resolution would

11 ibid. 12 Barry O’Neill, ‘Power and Satisfaction in the United Nations Security Council’ (1996) 40(2) Journal of Conflict Resolution 235. 13 Shafa V Gasimova, ‘ The Security Council’s Endless Enlargement Debate’ (2012) 6(3) Central European Journal of International & Security Studies 269. 14 ibid, 276. 15 Ross Fitzpatrick, ‘Ireland at the Helm: Assessing Ireland’s Presidency of the UN Security Council’ (2021) The Institute of International & European Affairs: <https://www.iiea.com/images/uploads/resources/Ireland-at-the-Helm.pdf> accessed 3 March 2022. 16 ibid.

build on the vision statement of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, concerning the sustained protection of civilians during transitions of UN peacekeeping to peacebuilding missions.

However, Ireland’s presidency, like many other countries, fell victim to the veto power of Russia and China. While Taoiseach Mícheál Martin expressed Ireland’s intention to convene discussions on a climate and security resolution, strong opposition from Russia, China and India posed a threat to the creation of the first-ever resolution of this nature.17 Despite widespread support for the creation of such a resolution, the ultimate power of Russia and China to veto any proposed draft prevented Ireland from succeeding in this area.

Ultimately, while Ireland may have suffered some setbacks due to the power of the permanent five members of the UNSC, their time at the head of the table could and should still be considered a substantial success. In September Ireland oversaw the adoption of five UNSC resolutions, one presidential statement and four press statements.18 They briefed Council members on a range of issues: from climate and security to the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. They attempted to heighten international responsibility for climate change and while they may have failed in bringing forth any such resolution, they did prove that despite being a small nation, they could stand up to those in a position of power and attempt to create meaningful change for those who remain vulnerable.

Conclusion

While Ireland’s presidency boasted some substantial success, the reaction of China and Russia to a Security and Climate resolution highlights a significant underlying problem of the UNSC; the power of the permanent five. The veto power of these five was one of the most divisive issues during the drafting of the UN Charter and its controversy

17 ibid. 18 UNSC Res 2594 (9 September 2021) UN Doc S/RES/ 2594; UNSC Res 2595 (15 September 2021) UN Doc S/Res/ 2595; UNSC Res 2596 (17 September 2021) UN Doc S/Res/2596; UNSC Res 2597 (17 September 2021) UN Doc S/Res/2597; UNSC Res 2598 (29 September 2021) UN Doc S/Res/2598; UNSC Res 2599 (30 September 2021) UN Doc S/Res/2599; UNSC Presidential Statement 18 UN Doc S/PRST/2021/18; UNSC ‘Security Council Press Statement on Twentieth Anniversary of 11 September Terrorist Attacks’ (9 September 2021) Press Release SC/14626; UNSC ‘Security Council Press Statement on Situation in Somalia’ (18 September 2021) Press Release SC/14641; UNSC ‘Security Council Press Statement on Sudan’ (22 Septemebr 2021) Press Release SC/14643; UNSC ‘Secuirty Council Press Statement on Lebanon’ (27 September 2021) Press Release SC/14646.

continues into the present day.19 If the UNSC cannot exercise its main function to maintain international peace and security due to the use of a veto by one or more of its members, could the UNSC be considered to be in direct breach of the UN Charter? 20

On 23 February 2022, Secretary-General António Guterres in an address to an emergency meeting of the UNSC urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop his troops attacking Ukraine and to give ‘peace a chance’.21 However, these words would come too late, as the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces would begin before the meeting had closed. The Presidency of the UNSC at the time of writing is in the hands of Russia, represented by Russian Ambassador Vasily Alekseevich Nebenzy. While resolutions may be proposed to authorise action against Russian forces, it is important to note that Russia still possesses the power to veto any such proposals. The invasion of Ukraine has highlighted significant concerns regarding the efficacy of the UNSC. Russia continues to possess a veto when it comes to all discussions of the Council, a veto that could block any authorisation of action in the region. This limits the position of the UNSC to act decisively and effectively in cases of humanitarian crises. As the war in Ukraine continues, the need to reform the UNSC becomes more urgent.

19 Philippa Webb, ‘Deadlock or Restraint? The Security Council Veto and the Use of Force in Syria’ (2014) 19(3) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 471. 20 Gasimova (n 13). 21 ‘As Security Council meets on Ukraine crisis, Russia announces start of ‘special military’ operation’ (24 February 2022) < new.un.org > accessed 24 February 2022. 152