24 July 2024

Chapter 3:   THE PEOPLE

Section 1:   The President

Rule 20 on ceding the Security Council presidency invoked by Ukraine while Russia serves in July 2024

By normal alphabetical rotation, the Security Council presidency for July 2024 fell to the Russian Federation. When that country initiated a meeting to be held on 25 July 2024 on the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine, the delegation of Ukraine circulated in advance a written “Comment”. Among other points, this document cited Rule 20 of the Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure on temporarily ceding the Council presidency under certain circumstances. Claiming that the 25 July meeting had been initiated by Russia “for the purpose of propaganda and manipulation”, Ukraine contended that in light of the “Russian war of aggression”, for Russia to preside over the meeting as Council President “seriously affects” consideration of the question.

The first sentence of Rule 20 reads:

“Whenever the President of the Security Council deems that for the proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the presidency he should not preside over the Council during the consideration of a particular question with which the member he represents is directly connected, he shall indicate his decision to the Council.”

The wording of Rule 20 makes clear that the decision to temporarily cede the Council presidency is at the sole discretion of the incumbent. This was intentional. In his report of 17 June 1946, the Chair of the Council’s Committee of Experts, which was tasked with completing work on the Council’s rules of procedure, confirmed that Rule 20 “leaves it to the discretion of the President himself to decide whether or not to leave the chair”. He added that the Committee had unanimously agreed upon the wording of Rule 20 because “the obligation in question was essentially a moral one”.

Rule 20 sets out two factors which guide presidents in deciding whether or not to temporarily cede their responsibilities:

1. That the consideration by the Council is of a particular question with which the presidency’s country “is directly connected”; and

1. That the President deems that “for the proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the presidency he should not preside over the Council” in such an instance.

It should be noted that while the standard of being “directly connected” to a question may appear politically obvious, the term has no real legal connotations.[1] And the notion of the “proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the presidency” provides some leeway for a president to argue that even though their country is “directly connected” to a question, this connection will not interfere with their ability to maintain the appropriately impartial stance of a Council president.

Because the wording of Rule 20 makes clear the discretionary nature of the decision to cede a presidency, never in its history has the Security Council ever taken action to try to force one of its members to do so. Rather, in every instance in which a Council member has temporarily ceded its presidency, it has done so voluntarily (see cases set out below).

In some instances, however, one or more Council members, and on occasion a non-Council member, have charged that it would be appropriate for a presidency to step aside.

In its July 2024 “Comment” paper, Ukraine regretted that at a meeting held on 9 July 2024, also under the Russian presidency, “the Russian Federation did not show respect to rule 20”. During the prior Russian presidency of April 2023, no formal meetings were held on Ukraine. But during the Russian Federation presidency of February 2022 – the same month as its invasion of Ukraine – Ukraine twice raised Rule 20. At a meeting on 25 February 2022, the Ukrainian representative stated that “if Russia did not violate the provisional rules, then Mr. Nebenzia [the Russian representative] would have to follow rule 20”. He added that “the Council is not ruled by the current presidency on the basis of rules”. At a meeting two days later, the Ukrainian representative said “I immediately express my regret that, once again, rule 20 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure has not been properly applied by the presidency.”

The second sentence of Rule 20 provides that if a president decides to temporarily cede the presidency,

“The presidential chair shall then devolve, for the purpose of the consideration of that question, on the representative of the member next in English alphabetical order, it being understood that the provisions of this rule shall apply to the representatives on the Security Council called upon successively to preside.”[2]

Under this provision, were the Russian Federation to cede its presidency for meetings on Ukraine in July 2024, chairing those meetings would fall to Sierra Leone. Had the Russian Federation ceded its presidency for meetings on Ukraine during its presidency of February 2022, the United Arab Emirates would have temporarily taken the chair.

As mentioned above, all cases of Council members ceding a presidency have occurred voluntarily.

On 4 October 1948, a Council meeting was convened at the request of France, the United Kingdom and the United States on the Berlin blockade. When the meeting opened, the United States, serving as Council President, stated that in consequence of Rule 20, “to put it in the language of the rule itself, I deem that for the proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the Presidency, I should not preside over the Security Council during the consideration of the particular question which is on our agenda”. The chair then automatically devolved upon the representative of Argentina.

This case was cited at a 12 January 1950 meeting on the question of the representation of China on the Security Council when the Republic of China was in the presidency. After citing Rule 20, the Republic of China representative stated, “I have chosen to use my discretionary power to ask my colleague from Cuba to preside over the Security Council on the next item of the agenda.” He restated that this was a discretionary power, and added that at the 1948 Berlin meeting, the United States representative had “set a precedent which, in my opinion, is wholesome for the development of the United Nations”. Interestingly, two days before this case, the Republic of China elected not to follow a proposal by Ecuador that it cede the presidency during a meeting on the same agenda item.

At a meeting on 21 January 1954 on the Palestinian question, Lebanon as Council President stated, “Rule 20 of our rules of procedure makes it possible for the President to yield his Chair for the time being to the member of the Council next in alphabetical order, if his country is directly interested in and has a direct connexion with the matter under consideration. I propose to invoke this rule”. New Zealand then took the chair for consideration of the question.

A case of a presidency not being ceded took place at a meeting held on 29 April 1958 on “Urgent measures to put an end to flights by United States military aircraft with atomic and hydrogen bombs in the direction of the frontiers of the Soviet Union”. The Soviet Union asked whether the United States intended to cede the chair. In response, the American representative suggested that the spirit of Rule 20 was like the practice of national parliamentary bodies in which members disqualify themselves if the matter being considered involves their personal interests. Reasoning that the Soviet complaint did not involve the “selfish national interests” of the United States, the American representative said he did not consider that he should not preside. Seemingly, this was an argument, in the terms of Rule 20, that for the United States to chair the meeting would not interfere with “the proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the presidency”.

On 7 December 1960, the Council met pursuant to a written Soviet request which strongly criticized the Secretary-General, the UN Congo operation, and the United States. After the American representative argued that the Soviet representative was “likely to be too prejudiced” to properly fulfil the presidency responsibilities for the meeting, a three-hour procedural debate ensued in which this issue became entangled with disagreements over the

agenda. After an amended agenda was finally approved, the Soviet representative reminded the Council that France had presided during discussion of the 1956 Suez invasion. He also noted that if he were to cede the presidency, it would devolve upon the United Kingdom which, he suggested, was no less an interested party. The Soviet representative then stated that he would not cede the presidency. The French representative clarified that his delegation had had “sincere doubts” about presiding during the 1956 Suez debates, but “nobody had raised any objection or expressed any doubt”.

At a 29 May 1968 meeting on Southern Rhodesia, the United Kingdom representative, serving as President, noted that Rule 20 placed the matter of ceding the chair “entirely within the discretion of the President.” He then stated that he had “come to the conclusion that I should act within the discretion which the rule provides, and accordingly I report my decision to the Council not to preside over the Council”. The United States then chaired the meeting.

This 1968 case was cited by the United Kingdom representative serving as Council President at a 16 December 1975 meeting on a serious naval incident between Iceland and the United Kingdom during the so-called “Cod Wars”. The representative said he had looked at precedents concerning Rule 20 which showed that Presidents had “not made it a habit” to vacate their seat and that the only precedent for doing so over the last 20 years or more was that taken by his delegation in 1968. Nonetheless, he then stated that despite all the precedents to the contrary, he had decided that it would be “fair and proper” for him to vacate the chair. The presidency then devolved upon the United Republic of Cameroon for the meeting.

On 9 February 1990, the Council met to consider a complaint brought by Cuba against the United States. Serving as Council President, the Cuban representative said that he had found few past precedents of presidencies vacating their seats. Nonetheless, he had decided that it would be appropriate for him to exercise the discretion given to the President under Rule 20 and vacate the Chair. The representative of Democratic Yemen then presided over the meeting

An unusual case of cession occurred in November 1993, when José Luis Jesus of Cape Verde, the Council President for that month, was a candidate for election to the International Court of Justice. When the Council met on 10 November to begin balloting, Jesus stated that given the “exceptional circumstances”, he had concluded that he should act within the discretion which Rule 20 provided. China took the chair for the duration of the voting. Even though Jesus withdrew his candidacy after two ballots, he did not resume the presidency to conduct the Council’s final ballot.

A case in which the presidency was not ceded occurred on 27 February 1996. The United States representative retained the chair at a meeting convened in response to her own letter requesting that the Council take up the item, “Shooting down of two civil aircraft on 24 February 1996”, a decision which was criticized by Cuba, participating in the meeting pursuant to Rule 37.

The most recent case of ceding the presidency during a formal Council meeting took place on 15 December 1994 concerning the Rwanda. The representative of Rwanda, Council President for the month, raised Rule 20 and announced he would not be presiding over the meeting. The subsequent devolution, however, was a special arrangement worked out in prior consultations. Under a strict interpretation of Rule 20, the United Kingdom, as next in alphabetical order, would have chaired the meeting. However, owing to the Rwandan genocide, the Council had earlier adopted two presidential statements[3] temporarily suspending the Rule 18 provision for alphabetical rotation of the presidency. This was done so that the United Kingdom would serve as President in October 1994, and the United States in November, until stability returned to Rwanda. It was because the alphabetical rotation had been changed that Argentina, which came after the United States in alphabetical order, chaired the 15 December 1994 meeting.

As mentioned, the Rwanda case was the most recent instance of ceding the presidency during a formal Council meeting. However, in September 2016, the presidency was ceded with respect to the informal meetings held to conduct straw polls for electing a new Secretary-General. In a press conference on 1 September 2016, the representative of New Zealand confirmed that because his country had a candidate in the elections, “I will not be myself presiding over the conduct of the straw polls.” Rather, the representative of the Russian Federation, next in line alphabetically, took on this responsibility. The New Zealand representative did not explicitly invoke Rule 20, which was appropriate since the Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure apply only to formal meetings. Nonetheless, his decision was clearly in the spirit of Rule 20, and also was consistent with the somewhat parallel case in 1993 of José Luis Jesus ceding the presidency during the meetings for electing ICJ judges in which he himself was a candidate.

Overall, the wording and practice relating to Rule 20 make clear that the decision to cede the chair for a particular meeting lies within the sole discretion of the presidency itself. But while this principle has been fully respected by successive Councils, there is also scope for Council members, and non-Council members, to propose that a presidency step aside, or to criticize a presidency for not doing so. In the present case of Ukraine raising the issue with respect to Russian representatives presiding over meetings on Ukraine, it remains to be seen whether additional Member States will echo the Ukrainian position in future Council meetings or in other settings. While it is true that the last case of cession under Rule 20 occurred almost thirty years ago, recent times have seen renewed interest in Council procedures which were more prevalent during the Council's earlier decades.

(This update supplements pages 113 to 115 of the book.)

_____________________________

[1] This contrasts with the more legally specific standard for obligatory abstentions set out in Charter Article 27(3) whereby “a party to a dispute” is to abstain from voting on questions of substance.

[2] Under the third sentence of Rule 20, when the President temporarily ceases to preside over a meeting, he or she still retains the responsibility for approving the provisional agenda drawn up for each meeting by the Secretary-General (Rule 7), and for representing the Council ‘in its capacity as an organ of the United Nations’ (Rule 19).

[3] S/PRST/1994/48 and S/PRST/1994/55.

​