Essay

Critically assess the measures taken by, and the responsibility of, the UN Security Council in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

0 purchase

Institution
The University Of Aberdeen (Aberd)

This is a legal analysis of the UN Security Council's level of involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it would be within its mandate, about the legal nature of Resolution 2532 and the whether the latter creates binding obligations for non-state actors.

[Show more]

Last document update: 3 year ago

Preview 2 out of 10 pages

View example

Uploaded on January 10, 2022
File latest updated on January 10, 2022
Number of pages 10
Written in 2021/2022
Type Essay
Professor(s) Unknown
Grade A

Student ID: 52094879

Critically assess the measures taken by, and the responsibility of,
the UN Security Council in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Although the COVID-19 pandemic represents a major international concern, the UN
Security Council failed to react in a timely manner1. During the early stages of the
coronavirus spread in March, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a call
for a global ceasefire2. However, the political tensions between China and the US
delayed the Council’s reaction by 3 months3. Resolution 2532 was passed in July,
containing three main provisions: a demand for a cessation of all hostilities, an appeal
for an immediate 90-day humanitarian pause and a call for international cooperation to
tackle the pandemic4. The pause, however, excluded operations against designated
terrorist groups5. Nevertheless, pausing hostilities has not been not a common response
to similar resolutions6. This could be partially attributed to the Council’s inconsistent
enforcement actions towards non-compliant parties due to the geopolitical interests of
its permanent members7. For this reason, it is likely that this initiative will have limited
effects in influencing the targeted actors, involved in armed conflicts. Moreover,
resolution 2532 draws attention to the issues regarding whether the mandate of the
Council should incorporate non-conventional threats and whether the suggested
measures could be effective legal instruments. In this essay, three key points will be
1
Ulku Halatci Ulusoy, “Role of the United Nations In Responding to COVID-19” (University of Aberdeen’s School
of Law Blog, 5 May 2020) https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/blog/role-of-the-united-nations-in-responding-to-
covid19/
2
Ibid.
3
Amanda Long and Tyler Beckelmain, “UN Finally Endorses a COVID-19 Ceasefire: Will It Make a Difference?”,
US Institute of Peace (8 July 2020)
https://www.usip.org/publications/2020/07/un-finally-endorses-covid-cease-fire-will-it-make-difference
4
Ibid.
5
Laura Hood, “Coronavirus: UN Security Council Finally Calls for Global Ceasefire After US and China Delay
Talks” Conversation (2 July 2020)
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-un-security-council-finally-calls-for-global-ceasefire-after-us-and-
china-delay-talks-141858
6
Christian Henderson and Noam Lubell, “The Contemporary Legal Nature of UN Security Council Ceasefire
Resolutions”, [2013] 26 Leiden Journal of International Law 395
7
Irene Couzigou, “Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions and of International Court of Justice
Judgments: The Unreliability of Political Enforcement Mechanisms” in Andras Jakab and Dimitry Kochenov
(eds) The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States’ Compliance (Oxford University Press,
2017)

1

, addressed. The first will discuss whether the Council has the responsibility to act during
a global health crisis. The second will critique the resolution’s effectiveness due to its
legally ambiguous nature, while the third will explore whether, if it is considered
binding, it could create obligations for non-state groups.

Despite the objections that the Council’s responsibilities should be limited to
maintaining military security, in practice collective health concerns have been
incorporated into the organ’s mandate8. The reason is that although a health crisis is not
necessarily a security crisis in itself, it could trigger one by aggravating unemployment,
social tensions or reversing peace-building efforts9. To illustrate, invoking similar
considerations, pandemics have already been framed as threats to international security
on 4 occasions by the Council over the past 20 years 10. This refers to the adoption of
resolutions 1308 and 1983 on HIV/AIDS as well as resolutions 2177 and 2439 on
Ebola, which set legal precedents in global health responses 11. Therefore, it is
compatible with the practice of the Council that the COVID-19 pandemic was
characterised as a significant risk to international peace and security in resolution 2532.
Nonetheless, it is acknowledged the Council’s jurisdiction has been expanding into
areas beyond the traditional notion of security, associated with its original mandate and
has been gradually moving towards the concept of human security 12. The latter includes
not only acts of aggression against states, but also threats concerning the violation of
human rights such as the right to health13. However, it is necessary to take into
consideration whether it is lawful for the Council to change its own jurisdiction, since
after all it is an organ within an international organisation with a given mandate 14. The
Vienna Convention as well as the concept of evolutionary interpretation allow for

8
Andrew Cooper, John Kirton, Ted Schrecker, Governing Global Health: Challenge, Response, Innovation
(Routledge, 2017) 8
9
Ibid.
10
Sophie Harman, “COVID-19, the UN and Dispersed Global Health Security” [2020] 34 Ethics & International
Affairs, 376
11
Ibid.
12
Artem Sergeev and Jen Lee, “From State Security to Human Security: The Evolving Nature of the United
Nations Security Council’s Jurisdiction” [2019] MCGILL Journal of International Law & Legal Pluralism
https://intergentes.com/from-state-security-to-human-security-the-evolving-nature-of-the-united-nations-
security-councils-jurisdiction/
13
Ibid.
14
Devon Whittle, “The Limits and Legality of the United Nations Security Council: Applying the Extra Legal
Measures Model to Chapter VII Action” [2015] 26 European Journal of International Law 673

2

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller vedballl. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling