Abstract The rule of law can be defined as having four elements: (1) democracy; (2) proper legislation respecting international human rights standards; (3) the institutions to administer this law, including independent and impartial courts; and (4) the individuals with the integrity and the knowledge necessary to administer these institutions. The UN has come to an understanding that the rule of law is indispensable for international peace and security, for example in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 2012 entitled "Declaration of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law at the national and international levels". The Security Council with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is the most powerful UN organ. A special responsibility weighs heavily upon high-level politicians in states members of the Council to contribute to establishing the rule of law at the national and international levels.
The point of departure in the present article is that the UN Security Council must be reformed. But this reform should not focus on extending the membership of the Council, which seems to be the main issue in the discussion at present. It is imperative that the Council is maintained as an executive organ since this is a precondition for its effective functioning. Too many members would destroy this requirement completely, in particular if additional members are granted veto power. Already 15 members may be past the limit for an executive organ. Additional members will endanger the Council's ability to fulfil its obligations under Art. 24 of the UN Charter: the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Instead, the reform should focus on resolving the real problem with the Council, namely the manner in which the permanent members sometimes behave. The exercise of the veto power must be in conformity with the UN Charter, which now must be viewed against the background of the development of international law since the UN was established more than 70 years ago. The manner in which some permanent members exercise their veto power is simply not in conformity with the Charter. Against this background it is absolutely necessary that the five permanent members engage in a profound discussion about their performance and the manner in which the veto power is exercised. Here, there is need for statesmanship. The members of the Security Council, and in particular the permanent members, must lead by example. What the Council must focus on is conflict prevention. This requires determination and consequence. The focus must be on the challenges that humankind is facing and will face ever more in the future and the threats to international peace and security that these challenges are causing. The need for the rule of law and protection of human rights are obvious elements in this analysis. Furthermore, the growth of the world population in combination with climate change simply must be addressed in an effective manner. The Council must focus attentively on these 'conflict multipliers'. The discussion must also focus on peacekeeping and responsibility to protect. With respect to responsibility to protect there is great need for improvement. We cannot accept in the 21st century that fundamental human rights are violated and that crimes against international humanitarian law are being committed on a large scale without consequences. Another important element in this context is empowerment of women. In addressing these questions there is need for close cooperation with regional organizations. This cooperation already exists, but the question is how it can be developed and what lessons can be learnt from the past. Since the five permanent members are also recognized as nuclear-weapon States under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, they must confirm their obligations under this treaty and make serious their obligation to work for a nuclear-weapon free world. A reform along the lines discussed in the present article can be made without amending the UN Charter.
An address given at the 23 June 2009 Stockholm Criminology Symposium Plenary Session on, Nations United against the Victimization of Mankind, focuses on the ability of today's nations to deal with impunity. Recent developments in international law are described, along with achievements of institutions like the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which indicted 161 persons for violating humanitarian law. However, a review of the records of similar tribunals/special courts in places like Rwanda & Sierra Leone reveal that many guilty individuals, including key leaders, manage to escape punishment. The question of who is responsible for addressing this impunity is discussed, noting that the lack of democracy & a rule of law has prevented many states from taking responsibility. The work of the International Criminal Court is impeded by both this lack & the absence of its own police force. It is argued that the UN Security Council should take the lead in establishing democracy & a just rule of law worldwide, paving the way for an effective international criminal justice system. Adapted from the source document.
On October 26 and 27, 1992, a meeting was held of the heads of the offices responsible for international legal services of the foreign ministries of the member states of the United Nations—the Legal Advisers. The meeting—the third of its kind—was organized at the invitation of the Legal Advisers of Canada, India, Mexico, Poland and Sweden, and with the assistance of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, Under-Secretary-General Carl-August Fleischhauer. Thirty Legal Advisers and sixteen of their deputies attended, together with nearly fifty other interested participants. All five colleagues representing the permanent members of the Security Council were present.
