Five members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement will sit on the Security Council in 2022
11 October 2021
Of the countries serving terms on the Security Council in 2022, five will be full members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Gabon, Ghana, India, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, representing a drop of one from the 2021 Council . . .
Five members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement will sit on the Security Council in 2022
11 October 2021
Of the countries serving terms on the Security Council in 2022, five will be full members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Gabon, Ghana, India, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, representing a drop of one from the 2021 Council . . .
Five members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement will sit on the Security Council in 2022
11 October 2021
Of the countries serving terms on the Security Council in 2022, five will be full members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Gabon, Ghana, India, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, representing a drop of one from the 2021 Council . . .
Five members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement will sit on the Security Council in 2022
11 October 2021
Of the countries serving terms on the Security Council in 2022, five will be full members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Gabon, Ghana, India, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, representing a drop of one from the 2021 Council . . .
Five members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement will sit on the Security Council in 2022
11 October 2021
Of the countries serving terms on the Security Council in 2022, five will be full members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Gabon, Ghana, India, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, representing a drop of one from the 2021 Council . . .
Vetoes, insufficient votes and competing draft resolutions accentuate divisions within the Council
2 April 2022
Since 2000, and especially since 2010, there has been a marked increase in divisive votes in the Security Council,
which reflects the fact that some Council members are now less willing to shield the Council's divisions from
public view. In part, this reflects the polarizing nature of some key items more recently before the Council . . .
Last Update: 20 November 2024
UPDATE WEBSITE OF
THE PROCEDURE OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, 4TH EDITION
by Loraine Sievers and Sam Daws, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014
Updated on 1 November 2014
Chapter 7: DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTS
Section 1: Formats of decisions
Operational decisions in the format of letters by the President
By a letter dated 11 October 2013 (S/2013/603), the Council President informed the Secretary-General that the Security Council “authorizes the establishment of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Mission” to eliminate the chemical weapons programme in Syria. This letter was sent in response to a letter dated 7 October 2013 (S/2013/591) from the Secretary-General in which he set out an eight-page proposal for the Joint Mission as requested by the Council’s resolution 2118 (2013).
As noted on page 428 of the book, for most exchanges of letters between the Secretary-General and the Council President, the publication of the letter from the Secretary-General will be held back until the Council’s reply has been approved, and then both letters will be issued at the same time, usually with consecutive document symbols. In the case of the Joint Mission, the Secretary-General’s letter was published several days before the Council President’s reply, and the document symbols were not consecutive. This suggests that it was initially thought that authorizing the establishment of the Joint Mission was a decision of such magnitude that a resolution would be the appropriate format. Subsequently, possibly because two draft resolutions relating to Syria had been vetoed in 2012, it seems that it came to be considered that agreement by Council members on a brief, factual letter of reply by the President would be more easily obtained than the adoption of a resolution which, by its nature, would probably include political elements.
The establishment of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Mission through the format of an exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council echoes the format by which the operational decision was taken to establish a UN guard unit “to enable the implementation of the mandated tasks of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic” (S/2013/636, S/2013/637, S/2013/696). This same format was used when it was decided to deploy “a static United Nations Guard Unit to strengthen the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia” (S/2013/764, S/2013/765). (This update supplements pages 375 and 378 of the book.)