The UN Security Council Acting on Syria In the Context of Emerging Multipolarity of International Relations

Maria S. Khodynskaya-Golenischeva – PhD in History, diplomat at the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva. 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Avenue de la Paix 15.
Вся статья: 

DOI 10.24833/2071-8160-2017-6-57-161-173 (Read the article in PDF)

The article analyzes main trends in the work of the UN Security Council on the Syrian issues. The author notes that the interaction of the Security Council members fully reflected the modern development of international relations, related to its transformation towards polycentricism. This process is associated with a reduction in the ability of the US to use the UN Security Council to conduct its own narrow-conjuncture policy, with the growing influence of new centers of power, primarily Russia and China. Those actors are ready to uphold the principle of inadmissibility of using the UN Security Council to interfere in the internal affairs of states in order to change regimes. To counter this trend, Washington and its allies pursued a policy of pressure on Moscow, trying to force it to abandon an independent course toward Syria. At the same time, the thesis of the “paralysis” of the UN Security Council with reference to the conflict in Syria was actively used because of Russia’s position. Simultaneously, Russian initiatives in the UN Security Council aimed at de-escalating the situation and launching an inter-Syrian dialogue were rejected. Nevertheless, the consistent position of Russia and China forced the West to gradually realize the non-alternative search for common denominators on the Syrian issue as well as collective partnership efforts to find measures to end the conflict. As a result, it became possible to adopt a number of decisions of the UN Security Council concerning various aspects of the settlement of the crisis. The main principles of the settlement, negotiating formats for the participants in the conflict and external players were agreed upon. Thus, it was the interaction in Syria that gave the UN Security Council the opportunity to become the embodiment and guarantor of a multipolar world, a platform for harmonizing approaches on an equitable collective basis in a changing world.

Key words: Syria, UN, the UN Security Council, multipolarity, unipolarity, terrorism, the Middle East

1.    Golovanov E.V. Vozmozhnosti reformirovaniia Soveta Bezopasnosti OON [Opportunities for UN SC reform]. Politicheskaia ekspertiza: POLITEKS. 2011, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 165-174. (in Russian).
2.    Kaliadin A.N. Kakaia reforma pomozhet realizovat' potentsial Soveta Bezopasnosti OON? [What reform will be helpful to unleash UN SC potential] Puti k miru i bezopasnosti. 2015, no. 2 (49), pp. 7-19. (in Russian).
3.    Shherbak I.N. O deiatel'nosti Soveta Bezopasnosti OON na sovremennom etape [On UN SC at the new stage]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2013, no. 6 (33), pp. 9-14. (in Russian).
4. Allen S.H., Yuen А.Т. The Politics of Peacekeeping: UN Security Council Oversight Across Peacekeeping Missions. International Studies Quarterly. 2014, vol. 58, no. 3, рр. 621–632. DOI: 10.1111/isqu.12086
5. Aral B. An Inquiry into the “Effective” United Nations Security Council Resolutions Relating to the Middle East within the Past Decade. The Muslim World. 2012, no. 102, рр. 225–247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-1913.2012.01403.x
6. Averre D., Davies L. Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: the case of Syria. International Affairs. 2015, no. 91, рр. 813–834. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2346.12343
7. Engelbrekt K. Responsibility Shirking at the United Nations Security Council: Constraints, Frustrations, Remedies. Global Policy. 2015, no. 6, рр. 369–378.
8. Johnstone I. Legislation and Adjudication in the Un Security Council: Bringing down the Deliberative Deficit. The American Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 102, № 2. pp. 275-308. DOI: 10.2307/30034539
9. Macklem P. Humanitarian Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in International Law. Ethics & International Affairs. 2008. № 22. рр. 369–393.
10. Prantl J. Informal Groups of States and the UN Security Council. International Organization. 2005, vol. 59, № 3. pp. 559-592. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2008.00172.x
11. Voeten E. The Political Origins of the UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force. International Organization. 2005. Vol. 59, № 3. pp. 527-557. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818305050198