The UN Security Council | Global Politics | A Level Politics

Summary

This lesson delves into the United Nations Security Council's structure and functions, focusing on its role in maintaining global peace and security. It explores the Council's authority to act against threats to peace, as outlined in the UN Charter, and its ability to authorize peacekeeping missions and military interventions. The discussion also touches on the legal binding nature of Security Council resolutions versus General Assembly resolutions. Criticisms of the Security Council include the dominance of permanent members, particularly their veto power, which can hinder action against their interests, as exemplified by recent conflicts involving Russia and the US.

Takeaways

• 🌐 The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a primary focus in the study of international peace and security, with its main function being to maintain peace worldwide.
• 📜 The UNSC has the authority to decide on actions to counter threats to peace, as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and can issue legally binding resolutions.
• 🛡️ Peacekeeping missions are a significant part of the UNSC's operations, established through resolutions and deployed in regions facing conflict or instability.
• ⚖️ The UNSC also has the power to sanction military interventions, although this is less common due to political sensitivities and controversies.
• 🏛️ The UNSC's role in regulating the use of force in international law is crucial, particularly in the context of jus ad bellum, which governs the initiation of armed conflict.
• 🔍 Historical instances of UNSC-sanctioned military interventions include the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991, demonstrating its capacity to enforce international law.
• 🤔 The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a contentious example of how UNSC resolutions can be interpreted and utilized by member states to justify military action.
• 🔑 The UNSC's permanent members (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) hold significant power, including veto rights, which can influence the council's decisions and actions.
• 🌍 Criticisms of the UNSC often center on the overrepresentation of certain nations and the underrepresentation of the global South, leading to questions about legitimacy and fairness.
• 🔍 The effectiveness and legitimacy of the UNSC are subject to ongoing analysis, with its actions and decisions being scrutinized for their impact on global peace and security.

Q & A

What is the primary function of the UN Security Council?

The primary function of the UN Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. It does this by taking actions in response to threats to peace, as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

What types of actions can the UN Security Council take to maintain peace?

The UN Security Council can take various actions, including the establishment of peacekeeping missions and the sanctioning of military intervention, to maintain peace. These actions are typically formalized through legally binding resolutions.

How are UN peacekeeping missions established?

UN peacekeeping missions are established through resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. These missions are deployed in regions experiencing conflict or instability to help maintain peace and security.

What is the difference between resolutions by the General Assembly and those by the Security Council?

Resolutions by the UN Security Council are legally binding under international law, whereas resolutions by the General Assembly are not legally binding and are more recommendatory in nature.

Can you provide examples of where UN peacekeeping missions are currently operating?

UN peacekeeping missions are operating in various regions, including Afghanistan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others.

What is the concept of 'jus ad bellum' in relation to the UN Security Council?

Jus ad bellum refers to the international law governing the use of force and the initiation of armed conflict. The UN Security Council plays a significant role in regulating jus ad bellum by authorizing military interventions when necessary.

How does the UN Security Council's authorization of military intervention work?

The UN Security Council can authorize military intervention in response to threats to international peace and security. This is done through resolutions that are legally binding on member states.

What are some historical examples of the UN Security Council authorizing military intervention?

Examples include the response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, and the controversial 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was justified by some as a continuation of previous resolutions.

What criticisms are often leveled against the UN Security Council's structure?

Critics argue that the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China, leads to a lack of global representation and potential conflicts of interest, especially given their veto power.

How does the veto power of permanent members impact the UN Security Council's effectiveness?

The veto power of permanent members can hinder the UN Security Council's ability to act when one of the permanent members is involved in a conflict or when actions align with their interests, leading to criticism of the Council's legitimacy and effectiveness.

What are some of the challenges the UN Security Council faces in terms of legitimacy and controversy?

Challenges include the representation of global powers, the potential for permanent members to use their veto power to protect their interests, and the difficulty of acting in situations where a permanent member is directly involved in a conflict, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 Overview of the UN Security Council's Role and Functions

This paragraph introduces the focus on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and its pivotal role in maintaining global peace and security. The lesson aims to analyze the UNSC's operations, the effectiveness of reforms, and its authority as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The UNSC has the discretion to determine actions against threats to peace, typically through legally binding resolutions that can establish peacekeeping missions worldwide. The paragraph also touches on the UNSC's power to sanction military interventions, referencing historical instances such as the Korean War and the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. The discussion sets the stage for a deeper analysis of the UNSC's successes and the challenges it faces, including the issue of representation and the veto power of its permanent members.

05:01

🏛 Critique and Assessment of the UN Security Council

The second paragraph delves into the critique of the UNSC, particularly concerning its permanent membership. It points out the dominance of Western superpowers and the underrepresentation of the global South, which may lead to an imbalance in decision-making. The paragraph highlights the issue of veto power, which can hinder the UNSC's ability to act against the interests of its permanent members, as exemplified by Russia's veto in the context of the Ukraine invasion. The critique also extends to past actions of the United States and the United Kingdom, suggesting potential biases in UNSC resolutions. The paragraph concludes by setting the stage for an assessment of the UNSC's effectiveness and the need to reconcile these challenges in future discussions.

Keywords

💡UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is a principal organ of the United Nations responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is composed of 15 members, including five permanent members with veto power. In the video, the UN Security Council is the central focus, as it discusses the Council's role in maintaining peace, its decision-making processes, and the challenges it faces due to its structure and the actions of its permanent members.

💡Peacekeeping missions

Peacekeeping missions refer to the deployment of multinational forces under the UN mandate to areas of conflict to help maintain peace and stability. These missions can include monitoring ceasefires, protecting civilians, and assisting in the implementation of peace agreements. The video mentions peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples of the UN Security Council's operations.

💡Chapter 7 of the UN Charter

This chapter outlines the power of the UN Security Council to take action in response to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. It provides the legal basis for the Council to authorize military action and economic sanctions. The video script refers to this chapter as the authority that empowers the UN Security Council to decide on actions against threats to peace.

💡Resolutions

Resolutions are formal expressions of opinion or intention by a deliberative assembly or legislative body. In the context of the UN Security Council, resolutions are legally binding and can authorize peacekeeping missions, sanctions, or military interventions. The video discusses the difference between resolutions by the General Assembly and those by the Security Council in terms of their binding nature.

💡Veto power

Veto power allows a permanent member of the UN Security Council to block any substantive resolution, effectively giving them a power to prevent action by the Council. The video highlights the issue of veto power as it can lead to inaction or biased decisions when the interests of a permanent member are at stake, such as in the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

💡Jus ad bellum

Jus ad bellum is a principle of international law that regulates the conditions under which a state may resort to war or other uses of force. The video discusses the UN Security Council's role in regulating jus ad bellum, particularly in authorizing military interventions, and how this is a contentious area due to the political nature of such decisions.

💡Jus in bello

Jus in bello, also known as the law of war, pertains to the conduct of warfare once armed conflict has begun. It includes rules about the treatment of combatants and non-combatants. The video contrasts jus ad bellum with jus in bello, noting that the UN Security Council's focus is more on the former, the initiation of conflict, rather than the conduct during conflict.

💡International humanitarian law

International humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions, governs the conduct of armed conflict to protect victims of war and ensure combatants conduct themselves with humanity. The video mentions this in relation to jus in bello, indicating that while the UN Security Council deals with the initiation of force, international humanitarian law governs the conduct during armed conflict.

💡Permanent members

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. These countries have significant influence due to their veto power. The video discusses the criticism that the composition of the permanent members can lead to decisions that favor these powerful states, potentially undermining the Council's legitimacy.

💡Legitimacy

Legitimacy in the context of the UN Security Council refers to the perceived right or justification for its actions and decisions. The video script touches on the challenges to the Council's legitimacy due to the structure that favors the permanent members, leading to potential bias and controversy in its actions, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Highlights

The UN Security Council is the focus of the first few lessons, emphasizing its structure and functions.

The Security Council's primary role is to maintain international peace and security.

The Council has the discretion to decide on actions against threats to peace as outlined in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Peacekeeping missions established by the Council are legally binding under international law.

The Council's resolutions can authorize military interventions, such as in Afghanistan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Council's role includes the regulation of the jus ad bellum, the law on the use of force in international settings.

The Council has authorized military interventions, including in response to the invasions of South Korea and Kuwait.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was controversially justified by reinstating a 1991 UN Security Council resolution.

Criticism of the Security Council often focuses on the power dynamics of its five permanent members.

The veto power of permanent members can hinder the Council's ability to act against their interests.

The representation of the global South in the Security Council is limited, affecting its legitimacy.

The Council's effectiveness is often questioned, especially in conflicts involving permanent members.

The next lesson will assess the Security Council's actions and the success of its peacekeeping missions.

Transcripts

in this lesson we're going to take an

overview at the general structure as

well as the functions of the UN Security

Council now the orange Security Council

is what we're going to be spending the

majority of the first few lessons

focusing on for the most part we're

going to be taking a an analytical role

at the UN Security Council focusing on

the extent to which operations have been

successful the extent to which reform

may be operational within the security

Council

and then we'll move on to look at the

other organs of the United Nations such

as the general assembly economic and

social Council and the European European

the international court of justice

so like I said we're continuing in our

examination of the role and functions of

the U.N security Council something that

we did touch on in the last lesson when

we introduced the United Nations but

we're going to focus on this particular

organ of the United Nations in this

video

so

where there are events that can be

considered

generally speaking to be threats to

peace in those quotation marks according

to chapter 7 of the UN Charter the U.N

security Council will have discretion to

decide as to what kind of action ought

to be taken in said situations that is

essentially what the purpose of the U.S

Security Council is it's to maintain

peace and security around the world

and so this can be done through the

usage of U.N security Council

resolutions and a number of different

options can be uh levied in terms of

being able to try and counteract threats

to peace now theoretically there's no

limitation on the kind of options that

can be incorporated within the UN

Security Council but generally speaking

peacekeeping missions are where the

majority of the attention tends to

operate tends to lie

now peacekeeping missions can be

established by U.N security Council

resolutions and these resolutions are

legally binding instruments of

international law and this is something

that we're going to focus on when we

look at the disparity between

resolutions by the general assembly and

resolutions by the security Council

where there is a a a a degree of

limitation in terms of The Binding

nature of them compared to the security

Council resolution for example

um peacekeeping operations take place

all over the world and they will take

place in troubled situations and in

troubled regions so we have peacekeeping

missions in for example Afghanistan in

Mali in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo and in others we have

um missions taking place essentially

wherever there is any kind of um

troubled situation or uh or or conflicts

taking place

now the sanctioning of military

intervention is also something that can

take place under the U.N security

Council and while it is not as common as

the authorization of peacekeeping

missions because of course there is a

certain degree of uh political

controversy in the sanctioning of

military intervention the UN Security

Council can authorize military

intervention in troubled regions so it

falls under the U.N security council's

role in the regulation of the usad

Bellum uh at the international law on

the use of force so it's generally

speaking when we think about

international law and international

Law's role in the regulation of armed

conflict we generally split and

delineate between two different stages

of the armed conflict if you will so you

have the usad Bellum which is the

beginning of an armed conflict the

international law and the use of force

being able to actually utilize Force

within international law settings

and then we have the use in Bellow which

is the regulation of armed conflict as

it is taking place the regulation of and

conduct of hostilities during uh armed

conflicts and this is uh Falls more

within the remitter of international

humanitarian law or Geneva law or Hagler

or the law of the the laws of war

essentially and so generally speaking

under the U.N security Council they have

the role of the regulation of the USA uh

the user Bellum in their ability to

regulate the international law on the

use of force now there have been

multiple instances in in the past

relatively recently in fact as well

where the U.N security Council has

passed resolutions that authorize

military intervention so for example in

1950 following the invasion of South

Korea by North Korea we also have the

invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's

Iraqi regime in 1991 military

intervention was sanctioned by the U.N

security Council there

and arguably according to the British

government the 2003 invasion of Iraq

could be justified by way of U.N

security Council resolutions but by not

necessarily a new Council resolution

that was issued but more so by

reinstating the U.N security Council

resolution which was passed in 1991.

essentially the argument here by

attorney general Lord Goldsmith at the

time was that because the U.N security

Council had issued a resolution in the

uh in military intervention in Kuwait as

a result of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi

regime that they could reactivate that

U.N security Council resolution given

the fact that they were similar um

circumstances in the same in the sense

that it was against Iraq and it was uh

under Saddam Hussein's regime that they

can reactivate this U.N security Council

resolution for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

now it is arguably the case that that is

a fringe interpretation of international

law but regardless that is one of the

Pres presentations that was um suggested

as a justification for the intervention

in Iraq in 2003

foreign

now beginning to think about the

assessment of the U.N security Council

beginning to think about the ways in

which the U.N security Council has its

problems and can be analyzed we have to

think about

um some of the major situations that

really caused the U.N security Council

to to either lack in any kind of

legitimacy or to be stuck in kind of a

controversial circumstances so the main

criticism that can't arguably beloved at

the U.N security Council relates to the

permanent membership now we know already

that there are five permanent members of

the U.N security Council we have the

United States the United Kingdom France

the Russian Federation and the China and

having permanent members of the U.N

security Council present the argument

that peace of security is essentially

regulated by mostly Western superpowers

like France the USA and the United

Kingdom and generally speaking if we

want to uh everyone to extend this even

further you could argue that having the

permanent members that we have and we

include the Russian Federation in China

as well we generally have the regulation

of piece of security done by superpowers

generally and where there is a lack of

representation of the global South in

this particular process or at least when

there is representation it is not by any

kind of permanent member it is

represented by those who are elected by

the general assembly

and so with permanent members also

having veto power there is the problem

um that the security Council has when it

comes to regulating action that aligns

with the interest of certain permanent

members so for example how can the U.N

security Council act in issues relating

to the Russian federation's invasion of

Ukraine when the Russian Federation is a

member of the U.N security Council and

therefore has the power to veto any kind

of action in that regard

so you have this problem whereby

essentially having permanent members and

having the specific permanent members in

question we have to trust in the fact

that they are not going to act in a way

that would be counter to any of the

actions that the U.N security Council

ought to partake in that you have to

trust that the UNC uh that the the

permanent members are going to act in a

way that presents a stability and peace

and security within the system

similarly just like as we've seen with

the invasion of Iraq from the

perspective of the United Kingdom and

the United States they also have the

power of veto on the UN Security Council

so we have this problem in that regard I

don't want to just make this out to be

an argument against the Russian

Federation uh for its invasion of

Ukraine of course this is just because

this is the most up-to-date and most

recent instance of something taking

place you could also make and Levy this

exact same argument to the United States

and the United Kingdom with the conflict

in Iraq and arguably also the conflict

in Afghanistan

so these are all different things that

we're going to have to reconcile with

the next lesson we're going to reconcile

with the actual an actual assessment of

the actions of the U.N security Council

the extent to which the U.S Security

Council has been successful in its

operations before moving on to looking

at the extent to which the U.N security

council's peacekeeping missions

specifically have been successful in

their operations