The Changing Faces of the UN Security Council

Abstract

The World Organisation of the United Nations was not conceived of at its origins as a world government. Nor could the substantive provisions of the Charter claim to constitute a comprehensive constitutional document for the entire globe. Many crucial issues of world order relevance were left open at the founding conference of San Francisco, the expectation being that any remaining structural problems would later be resolved by peaceful means. Nonetheless, it was hoped by many observers that the Security Council would be able to establish itself as an instance of last resort to address any emerging emergency situations. While the Security Council was legally well-endowed with decision-making powers under Chapter VII of the Charter, it initially encountered great difficulties in making use of those powers, given in particular the veto right of the five permanent members. After 1990, the differences of opinion among the permanent members softened considerably for a couple of years so that the Security Council could discharge at least some of the responsibilities entrusted to it. Additionally, the Security Council has gradually succeeded in enlarging its purview of action through recourse to its power of issuing recommendations under Chapter VI to individual States. Such country-specific recommendations have permitted the Security Council to engage itself in peace-building through promoting constitutional and societal reforms in many States, in particular in Africa. This kind of interference in domestic matters relies now on a consolidated basis of consistent practice. The evolutionary interpretation of the provisions of the Charter may at the same time suggest that the key concept of ‘threat to the peace’ in Article 39 of the Charter should also be understood in a way that enables the international community to address global predicaments like climate change and international migration.