DPRK Sanctions Panel of Experts - S/RES/1874 (2009)

S/RES/1874 deals the establishment of a Panel of Experts to address the issues of non-proliferation and nuclear weapons in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in addition to the sanctions from S/RES/1718. The resolution is a response to nuclear test that Korea conducted in May of 2009 and has some of the same calls that took place in the previous resolution. There is a call for inspection for all cargo to and from the DPRK and there are new directions that the sanctions regime should take through the Panel of Experts.

DPRK to chair arms control

Amidst of my series of posts analyzing the sanctions regime that has been established to counter North Korea's advances in pursuing weapons of mass destruction, it was announced that the country has been selected to be the Chair of the Disarmament Conference. It should been common sense that a country that is under UN sanctions for violating arms control agreements is not eligible to chair a conference on disarmament, but the regional rotation has taken precedence. I hope that the international community and public opinion can revisit this decision and remind why S/RES/1718, S/RES/1874 and S/RES/1985 were established in the recent years. The sanctions are still in place and they should be extended to within the UN system itself, because if even the organization that has established the sanctions can't uphold them, what message does that leaves to the other Member States?

Read more:
UN Watch - UN names North Korea chair of arms control agency

Korean Nukes and Sanctions in the Council - S/RES/1718 (2006)

S/RES/1718 (2006) was written in the context of the test of a nuclear weapon by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and as such contains a considerable imposing language towards the test, but with little change of the status quo. The tone of the resolution calls for a return to the level of negotiations that existed before the nuclear test, with calls for return to the NPT, six-party talks. There is the establishment of Sanctions Committee and some punitive elements, but the main elements relate to the return to the previous negotiations that were taking place.

Panel of Experts on DPRK Non-proliferation - S/RES/1985 (2011)

S/RES/1985 is one of document that extends the mandate of a bureaucracy inside the United Nations, while providing very little changes or guidance for the related organs. In this case, it deals with the Panel of Experts that addresses questions of nuclear non-proliferation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, even though these wordings are largely absent from the whole document. The documents is written in vague terms, mainly constructing their points from references to previous resolution instead of enunciating the mandate.

Dealing with Taliban UN style - S/RES/1988 (2011)

The main point of S/RES/1988 is to try to adjust the sanctions that have been previously established on members or contributors to Taliban, in face of the changed international scenario since the death of Bin Laden and also the evolution in the security situation on the ground. The document has a heavy administrative component, in the sense that it establishes guidelines and procedures that govern the inclusion and exclusion of names on the list of sanctioned members. The bulk of the clauses deal with these nuts and bolts and the details related to the operational aspects of the sanctions regime that are established on individuals and entities that sponsor acts of terror.

Renewing the Mission in Cyprus - S/RES/1986 (2011)

S/RES/1986 is one of the type of resolutions that became commonplace in the United Nations Security Council, which congratulates their previous efforts while extending the mandate of the mission being discussed. In the case they are dealing with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) which had its mandate first established in S/RES/186 (1964) and after the period the region still feels the need to maintain the mission on the ground. The mandate was set to expired on July 15th, 2011 and with this resolution it was extended until December 15th, 2011, while calling for continuous review and reporting by the mission and the Secretary-General on it to the Council.

Syria is not Libya. The resolution on Syria is not like the ones on Libya.

One of the main arguments for China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and others that oppose the adoption of the UNSC resolution dealing with Syria is that it will open the same door that S/RES/1970 and S/RES/1973 did when dealing with Libya. As careful readers of this blog might have concluded these resolutions are similarities, but are very far apart when it comes to actual mechanisms envisioned to change the behavior of their targets. There are clear similarities between the two resolutions on Libya and the proposed draft on Syria, but at the same time there are substantive differences that make the resolution completely different in character and severity of condemnation.

Re-appointment of the SG - S/RES/1987 (2011)

In these past days, the news was divulged that Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was elected unanimously to a send five-year mandate. S/RES/1987 (2011) is the Council resolution that expresses the support for it as the process goes. The re-appointment was no surprise to the UN observers, since the organization was still following the regional rotation which traditionally grants two five-year terms to the candidates, as was the case with Kofi Annan or Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. There is little reason to believe that the re-appointment will change the status quo of the organization.

My 2009 Article on UN Foreign Policy

The Institutional Conditions for a UN Foreign Policy

This article addresses the institutional capabilities of the United Nations to develop its own foreign policy. Basing the analysis on the works in the field of Foreign Policy Analysis, the article deals with the apparatus necessary for the organisation to craft its own policy. Furthermore the article draws parallels between the national institutions and the institutions of the organisation in order to enlighten the function of the different branches inside the United Nations. The UN Secretariat is dealt as one important instrument for the exercise of an independent foreign policy for the institution.

IPPR Volume 5 Number 1 (October 2009)

pp. 28-41

International Public Policy Review

University College London

Full piece: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ippr/journal/downloads/vol5-1/Fredrico_Bartels_Ferreira.pdf

How the Council Really Authorized Action in Libya. Part 2 - S/RES/1973

Before the ink was a month old in S/RES/1970, the Security Council voted and approved S/RES/1973. This new resolution already claims that the previous resolutions was a failure and that more actions are needed. S/RES/1973 moves from article 41 to Chapter VII as a whole, enforcing a no-fly zone and trying to go a step further than the previous resolutions, but also aiming at softening the current Libyan leadership stranglehold in their population and trying to account for crimes against humanity that ought to be take to the ICC in the current view of the UNSC. Additionally, with the new resolution it comes also a new bureaucracy to handle the tasks put forward at it, in this case is a panel of experts.

How the Council Authorized Action on Libyan. Part 1 - S/RES/1970

Under the titled “Peace and Security in Africa” of S/RES/1970, the United Nations Security Council issued one of two resolutions that currently serves as the basis of support for the action in Libya by Western countries. The resolution itself is based largely on the concept of responsibility to protect, an element that is being developed under the aegis of the United Nations and other international bodies that are still far from being established international law. The concerns on this concept have been explored elsewhere, this piece will focus on how it was applied in the case of Libya. The underlining rational that supports S/RES/1970 is based on alleviating the suffering of local population under the international responsibility to protect while reaffirming their commitment to Libyan sovereignty in all its elements. The resolution acts under Chapter VII, which deals with threats to peace and security, but under the article 41, that deals with means to tackle those threats not involving armed forces.

If HIV/AIDS is a threat to peace and security, what is the limit? - S/RES/1983

S/RES/1983 represents one of those stretches of a fundamental concept so it can fit something else. Or does it sound reasonable that HIV/AIDS is a threat to international peace and security? The resolution makes no reference to any specific situation in which HIV/AIDS had become a threat to international peace and security. In order to make this issue one that is minimally connected to the the main task of the UNSC, which is the maintenance of international peace and security, they focus on area of international conflict. The tone of the whole resolution is closer to a resolution from the Economic and Social Council or the General Assembly rather than other resolutions from the Security Council.

UN Mission in Western Sahara - 1979 (2011)

S/RES/1979 follows the line of many Security Council resolutions that have little actual content and many references to other resolutions to provide the bulk of the substance. The main point of the resolution is to renew the mission in Western Sahara until April 30th, 2012, while calling for more cooperation and action and checking the reports that have been submitted to the Council. The goal is to go through the current work that the UN is developing in the Western Sahara towards a peaceful resolution.

EU Draft on Syria - June 8th, 2011

Today a draft resolution on Syria by the UK, supported by the EU and the US, was circulated in the Council and the Turtle Bay blog and the Inner City Press have made it available to general public. Amidst reports that Russia, China and Brazil are opposed to it, it will be debated in the future on the Council.

Let's Renew Some More - 1977 (2011)

S/RES/1977 follows the line of the previous resolutions that renewed the 1540 Committee mandate and also S/RES/1540 itself. There is the same reaffirmation that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security and it is also acting under Chapter VII. It is followed by the threat of appropriate and effective actions in accordance to the UN Charter, while reaffirming that peaceful pursuits of material related to WMDs should still take place and the consideration that the obligations of these resolutions do not alter the obligations under previous multilateral treaties that address the same issue areas. There is a stress on the need for all Member States to comply to their already established obligations under international commitments related to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. A clause that only tries to call attention to the previous commitments, including their own resolutions and efforts. There a different clause in the preamble stating the concern of the Council when it comes to the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and its means of delivery by non state actors, in association with terrorism. This is one of the most explicit time that the linkage between the non-proliferation efforts and terrorism is made in the resolutions related to S/RES/1540. The preamble also passes by the issues of international cooperation and coordination as means to halt challenges such as illicit trafficking and established legislation related to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Renewing 1540 again - 1810 (2008)

S/RES/1810 returns to most of the concepts already established in S/RES/1673 and S/RES/1540 when it comes to considering proliferation a threat to international peace and security, stressing the relevance of the 1992 Presidential Statement, reaffirming that it does change the commitments under previous multilateral agreements, calling for cooperation in illicit trafficking and also stating that there can be action against violators under the options of the Charter. The preamble also praises the work already developed by the 1540 Committee and stress the importance of the report that was requested at S/RES/1673 two years before. It also reaffirms that the work of the committee is a long-term task, a detail that first appeared on S/RES/1673 as well. The innovation on this preamble is the portion that deals with the role of the 1540 Committee in terms of dialogue between it and Member States also the committee’s role in trying to enhance coordination efforts at all levels. In a passing note, S/RES/1810 references the issue of financing of proliferation activities being dealt under the Financial Action Task Force. As S/RES/1540 and S/RES/1673, S/RES/1810 acts under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Renewing 1540 - 1673 (2006)

The S/RES/1673 deals mainly with the 1540 Committee renewal and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction inside the organization and its surrounding agencies. The preamble comes from the same basis as S/RES/1540, mainly on the terms of coming from stating that proliferation of any of the three weapons of mass destruction is a threat to international peace and security granting the basis for action under Chapter VII of Charter. It also goes on again reaffirming that the provisions and obligations from other multilateral treaties that deal with those weapons. There are two important innovations from S/RES/1540 to S/RES/1673. Firstly is that not all States have presented the report required by S/RES/1540 that was supposed to be sent within six months, this 2006 resolution calls for States to submit the report. Secondly, there a clause on the preamble that state that the task required by 1540 are a “long-term task that will require continuous efforts at national, regional and international levels,”. With this opening they endorse the work already developed by the Committee related to the national reports already submitted.

Creating a Bureaucracy - 1540 (2004)

In short, the resolution 1540 (2004) created a new bureaucracy to deal with issues related to non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction. This bureaucracy is now know as the 1540 Committee and it operates under the authority of the United Nation Security Council, as some sanctions committee and the Counter-Terrorism Committee. As they put it in the forth operative clause: “Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, for a period of no longer than two years, a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all members of the Council, which will, calling as appropriate on other expertise, report to the Security Council for its examination, on the implementation of this resolution”. This being the main action, there are still important elements that complement this resolution and its impacts on the current efforts of non-proliferation.

Initial Effort

At the moment, I will focus on resolutions approved in the current year and work my way back as the resolutions entangle themselves in each other. My idea is to provide the most updated information possible and work with the most recent resolutions. Initially, I will not go through the elements that compose a Security Council resolution and the details that make it an unique bureaucratic document, but if there is need for that in the future I will be more than happy to go through it, not only the obvious elements, but also the type of language used.

What, Why and Who

The goal of this blog is to shed light on the resolutions and documents developed by the United Nations Security Council. The idea is to help people assess the value and the policies that are developed by the organization in those documents. Also, I hope to help people navigate through the bureaucratic maze that the United Nations Security Council and the whole organization has become.

The motivation comes from the bluntness that I have observed in Congress recently, in the sense that the critics and praises of the UN do not go into the depths of the issues and the details that can improve the organization. There is a need to separate the good from the bad when it comes to the work of the United Nations and I hope to contribute to improving how we judge the performance of the UN.

I am a current M.A. student on the International Affairs program with a concentration in US Foreign Policy at the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University. I did my undergraduate studies in International Relations at PUC Minas, in Brazil. Politically, I consider myself to be a classic liberal, a firm believer in the forces of free market and transparency and accountability as guidance to governmental enterprise.

Commentaries are more than welcome.