The Responsibility to React? Lessons from the Security Council's Response to the Southern Lebanon Crisis of 2006

Abstract

The Security Council's failure to react when Israel initiated its third large-scale military incursion into southern Lebanon in July 2006 stands in contrast to the overall reform agenda towards a responsive and accountable Security Council. While the idea of ‘responsibility to protect’ increasingly gains recognition, the delay in reacting to this event demonstrated a setback contrary to legitimate expectations expressed by member states. This article uncovers the extent to which the international community has come to recognize the legal significance of the Security Council's responsibility under the UN Charter, what legal implications the failure of reaction could entail, and what needs to be reformed to rectify the ‘responsibility deficit disorder’ of the Security Council. It is argued that the Security Council's responsibility under Art. 24(1) carries growing legal significance, which requires reform of the ‘attitude’ and ‘culture’ of the Security Council towards conflict management by mainstreaming peacekeeping operations in its security policy.