Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Security Council Resolutions and Selection Bias

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Strategic Use of International Law by the United Nations Security Council

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 1160 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to establish whether the proclaimed Security Council (SC) commitment to upholding relevant international law is tainted by appearance of bias. To that end, it creates a taxonomy of SC decisions in which resolutions are classified into three categories—namely, resolutions on geopolitical regions, thematic resolutions and a residual category of resolutions. Although many alternative perspectives can be used to establish whether the adopted resolutions are charged of bias, this chapter evaluates the internal coherence of SC resolutions by analysing the amount of international legal instruments cited in the text of resolutions. The underlying assumption is that the more international instruments are cited in the text of resolutions, the more unbiased are the SC resolutions adopted. An argument is made that there is an inherent tension between compliance with the terms of the SC mandate and a degree of discretion related to the selection of the subject-matters of resolutions, and such tension seems unavoidable. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the implications of current SC practice for the development of international law and proposes ways to reduce as much as possible the discretion in the hands of the SC in light of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, which are often advocated in the text of SC resolutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Resolutions are generally regarded as the category of substantive SC decisions endowed with the greatest political importance. However, as the empirical data show, there is a tendency among scholars to focus only on resolutions. On the interpretation of SC resolutions, see Orakhelashvili (2007), p. 143, Wood (1998) and Yee (2012).

  2. 2.

    On this issue, see Rosand (2005).

  3. 3.

    Steiner and Alston (2000), pp. 651–653 (discussing gross violations of human rights and the SC’s impasse caused by political convenience of the P5). See also Smith (2010), p. 54 (arguing that ‘[t]he most serious compliant raised against the Security Council is that it is less likely to take action against its permanent members’).

  4. 4.

    The data for the thematic resolutions is as follows: international law (164), international human rights law (45), international humanitarian law (77) and refugee law (36).

  5. 5.

    As discussed in Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.4.

  6. 6.

    Res. 1265(1999), paras. 3 and 4; Res. 1296(2000), Preamble, para. 7; PRST 2002/41, para. 3; PRST 2003/27, para. 2; PRST 2004/46, para. 3; and PRST 2010/25, para. 9.

  7. 7.

    Res. 1296(2000), Preamble, para. 6; Res. 1674(2006), Preamble, para. 2; Res. 1738(2006), Preamble, para. 3; and Res. 1894(2009), Preamble, para. 2.

  8. 8.

    In the Security Council resolutions and presidential statements on women, children and the protection of civilians in armed conflicts there are countless references to the unlimited discretion of the Security Council in assessing matters brought to its attentions (“where necessary” and “on a case-by-case basis”). See, for instance, PRST 2002/6, para. 3.

  9. 9.

    PRST 1999/6, para. 6 (emphasis added).

  10. 10.

    Gowlland-Debbas (1994), p. 662.

  11. 11.

    Smith (2010), p. 54 (arguing that “[t]he most serious compliant raised against the Security Council is that it is less likely to take action against its permanent members”).

  12. 12.

    Fischman (2013), p. 168.

  13. 13.

    Deplano (2014).

  14. 14.

    Deplano (2014), pp. 148–149.

  15. 15.

    Res. 1612(2005), para. 4; Res. 1882(2009), para. 2; Res. 1998(2011), para. 2; and PRST/2010/10, para. 16.

  16. 16.

    Newman (2008), pp. 177–178.

  17. 17.

    Schwebel (1951), p. 371.

  18. 18.

    Schwebel (1951), p. 374.

  19. 19.

    UN Charter, Arts. 10–11.

  20. 20.

    In the SC resolutions and presidential statements on women, children and civilians there are countless references to the unlimited discretion of the SC in assessing matters brought to its attentions (‘where necessary’ and ‘on a case-by-case basis’). See, for instance, PRST/2002/6, para. 3.

  21. 21.

    Admission of a state to the United Nations (Charter, Article 4) (Advisory Opinion) [1948] ICJ Rep. 57, at 64 (emphasis added).

  22. 22.

    Rehman (2010), p. 39.

Bibliography

  • Deplano, Rossana. 2014. Building a Taxonomy of UN Security Council Decisions: A Biased Compliance with the UN Charter Obligations?. State Practice and International Law Journal 1: 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischman, Joshua B. 2013. Reuniting ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ in empirical legal scholarship. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162: 117–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlland-Debbas, Vera. 1994. The relationship between the international court of justice and the security council in light of the Lockerbie case. American Journal of International Law 88: 643–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Edward. 2008. In The Oxford handbook on the United Nations, eds. Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws, 175–192. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili, Alexander. 2007. The acts of the security council: meaning and standards of review. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 11: 143–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, Javaid. 2010. International human rights law. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosand, Eric. 2005. The security council as “Global legislator”: ultra vires or ultra innovative? Fordham International Law Journal 28: 542–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel, Stephen M. 1951. The origins and development of article 99 of the charter. British Yearbook of International Law 28: 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Rhona. 2010. Textbook on international human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Henry J., and Philip Alston. 2000. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Michael C. 1998. The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 2: 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee, Sienho. 2012. The Dynamic Interplay between the Interpreters of Security Council Resolutions. Chinese Journal of International Law 11: 613–622.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brunel Law School, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

    Rossana Deplano

Authors
  1. Rossana Deplano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rossana Deplano .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Deplano, R. (2015). Security Council Resolutions and Selection Bias. In: The Strategic Use of International Law by the United Nations Security Council. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21281-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation