Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:29:53.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutive mechanisms of UN Security Council practices: Precedent pressure, ratchet effect, and council action regarding intrastate conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2018

Thomas Gehring Open the ORCID record for Thomas Gehring [Opens in a new window]  and
Thomas Dörfler
Thomas Gehring*
Affiliation:
University of Bamberg – Germany
Thomas Dörfler
Affiliation:
Centre for Policy Research – Tokyo, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. Email: Thomas.Gehring@uni-bamberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based upon the current debate on international practices with its focus on taken-for-granted everyday practices, we examine how Security Council practices may affect member state action and collective decisions on intrastate conflicts. We outline a concept that integrates the structuring effect of practices and their emergence from interaction among reflective actors. It promises to overcome the unresolved tension between understanding practices as a social regularity and as a fluid entity. We analyse the constitutive mechanisms of two Council practices that affect collective decisions on intrastate conflicts and elucidate how even reflective Council members become enmeshed with the constraining implications of evolving practices and their normative implications. (1) Previous Council decisions create precedent pressure and give rise to a virtually uncontested permissive Council practice that defines the purview for intervention into such conflicts. (2) A ratcheting practice forces opponents to choose between accepting steadily reinforced Council action, as occurred regarding Sudan/Darfur, and outright blockade, as in the case of Syria. We conclude that practices constitute a source of influence that is not captured by the traditional perspectives on Council activities as the consequence of geopolitical interests or of externally evolving international norms like the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P).

Keywords

Security CouncilInternational PracticesConstitutive MechanismResponsibility to ProtectPrecedentRatchet Effect
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 120 - 140
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schatzki, Theodore R., Knorr Cetina, Karin, and von Savigny, Eike (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (London: Routledge, 2001)Google Scholar; Neumann, Iver B., ‘Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31:3 (2002), pp. 627–651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in Libya’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:4 (2014), pp. 889–911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bode, Ingvild, ‘Reflective practices at the Security Council: Children and armed conflict and the three United Nations’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:2 (2018), pp. 293–318Google Scholar.

3 Stone Sweet, Alec and Sandholtz, Wayne, ‘Law, politics, and international governance’, in Christian Reus-Smit (ed.), The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004), pp. 238–271 Google Scholar; Ambrosetti, David, ‘The diplomatic lead in the United Nations Security Council and local actors’ violence: the changing terms of a social position’, African Security, 5:2 (2012), p. 66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pouliot, Vincent, International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Voeten, Erik, ‘The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force’, International Organization, 59:3 (2005), pp. 527–557 Google Scholar; Thompson, Alexander, ‘Coercion through IOs: the Security Council and the logic of information transmission’, International Organization, 60:1 (2006), pp. 1–34 Google Scholar.

5 Williams, Paul D. and Bellamy, Alex J., ‘Principles, politics, and prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the use of military force’, Global Governance, 18:3 (2012), pp. 273–297 Google Scholar.

6 Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, ‘The play of international practice’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015), p. 451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ibid., p. 449.

8 Brown, Chris, ‘The practice turn, phronesis and Classical Realism: Towards a phronetic international political theory?’, Millennium, 40:3 (2012), pp. 439–456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frost, Mervyn and Lechner, Silviya, ‘Two conceptions of international practice: Aristotelian praxis or Wittgensteinian language-games?’, Review of International Studies, 42:2 (2016), pp. 334–350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

9 Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International practices: Introduction and framework’, in Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 3–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 1–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Wenger, Etienne, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, Emanuel, Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (London: Routledge 2005), pp. 2–27 Google Scholar.

11 Morjé Howard, Lise and Kaushlesh Dayal, Anjali, ‘The use of force in UN peacekeeping’, International Organization, 72:1 (2018), pp. 71–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 24.

13 Hopf, Ted, ‘Change in international practices’, European Journal of International Relations, online first (2017), pp. 1–25 Google Scholar.

14 On levels of analysis of international practices, see Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 8. Some contributions focus on a single detailed decision process or country action, for example, Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’; Bode, ‘Reflective practices at the Security Council’; and Nagelhus Schia, Niels, ‘Being part of the parade – “going native” in the United Nations Security Council’, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 36:1 (2013), pp. 138–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other practice analysts operate at a much higher level of aggregation, see, for example, Pouliot, Vincent and Thérien, Jean-Philippe, ‘The politics of inclusion: Changing patterns in the governance of international security’, Review of International Studies, 41:2 (2015), pp. 211–237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Adler, Emanuel, ‘The spread of security communities: Communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-Cold War transformation’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:2 (2008), pp. 195–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Barry Barnes, ‘Practice as collective action’, in Schatzki, Cetina, and von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp. 21–6; Bueger and Gadinger, ‘The play of international practice’; Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice.

16 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 4.

17 Ibid., p. 6.

18 Ibid., p. 5.

19 Ibid., p. 6.

20 Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’, pp. 898–902.

21 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 5.

22 Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’, p. 895, similarly Bode, ‘Reflective practices at the Security Council’.

23 Ralph, Jason and Gifkins, Jess, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice: Contesting competence claims in the normative context created by the Responsibility to Protect’, European Journal of International Relations, 23:3 (2016), pp. 630–653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Wenger, Communities of Practice; Adler, Communitarian International Relations.

25 Adler, Communitarian International Relations, p. 14; Wenger, Communities of Practice, pp. 72–85.

26 Wenger, Communities of Practice, p. 77.

27 Adler, ‘The spread of security communities’, p. 200.

28 Howard and Dayal, ‘The use of force in UN peacekeeping’, pp. 79–81, Bode, ‘Reflective practices at the Security Council.

29 Ambrosetti, ‘The diplomatic lead in the United Nations Security Council and local actors’; Hurd, Ian, ‘Security Council reform: Informal membership and practice’, in Bruce M. Russett (ed.), The Once and Future Security Council (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997), pp. 135–152 Google Scholar; Ralph and Gifkins, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice’, pp. 642–7; Pouliot, International Pecking Orders; Jess Gifkins, ‘R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond’, Cooperation and Conflict, 51:2 (2016), pp. 148–65.

30 Pouliot, International Pecking Orders, p. 266.

31 Ibid., p. 270.

32 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 6.

33 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices: Introduction’, p. 15.

34 Neumann, ‘Returning practice to the linguistic turn’, p. 631.

35 Bueger and Gadinger, ‘The play of international practice’, p. 456.

36 Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’; Bode, ‘Reflective practices at the Security Council’; Ralph and Gifkins, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice’.

37 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices: Introduction’, p. 8.

38 Hopf, ‘Change in international practices’.

39 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices: Introduction’, p. 8; Hopf, Ted, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), pp. 539–561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices: Introduction’, p. 7.

41 Duvall, Raymond D. and Chowdhury, Arjun, ‘Practices of theory’, in Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 338–343 Google Scholar, 347–50.

42 Pouliot, International Pecking Orders, pp. 57–8.

43 Charter of the United Nations, Art. 39, see also Arts. 2.1, 2.7, 41–2.

44 Hurd, Ian, ‘The UN Security Council and the international rule of law’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7:3 (2014), p. 365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 See {http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/index.shtml}.

46 Johnstone, Ian, ‘Security council deliberations: the power of the better argument’, European Journal of International Law, 14:3 (2003), pp. 437–480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Krisch, Nico, ‘The Security Council and great powers’, in Vaughan Lowe, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welsh, and Dominik Zaum (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 141–142 Google Scholar.

48 Voeten, ‘The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force’; Thompson, ‘Coercion through IOs’; Hurd, Ian, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Contessi, Nicola P., ‘Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation: China’s stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council’, Security Dialogue, 41:3 (2010), pp. 323–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Howard and Dayal, ‘The use of force in UN peacekeeping’, pp. 73–4.

50 Mahbubani, Kishore, ‘The permanent and elected council members’, in David Malone (ed.), The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2004), pp. 253–266 Google Scholar.

51 Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 57–58 Google Scholar; Sugden, Robert and Zamarrón, Ignacio E., ‘Finding the key: The riddle of focal points’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 27:5 (2006), pp. 615–617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 See discussion of Schelling in Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, pp. 10–11.

53 Sandholtz, Wayne, ‘Dynamics of international norm change: Rules against wartime plunder’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), p. 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 260.

55 Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, ‘Law, politics, and international governance’, p. 259.

56 Kratochwil, Friedrich V., Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 223–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gentner, Dedre and Smith, Linsey A., ‘Analogical reasoning’, in Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Oxford: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2012), pp. 131–132 Google Scholar; Sunstein, Cass R., ‘On analogical reasoning’, Harvard Law Review, 106:3 (1993), pp. 741–791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Faizullaev, Alisher and Cornut, Jérémie, ‘Narrative practice in international politics and diplomacy: the case of the Crimean Crisis’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 20:3 (2017), pp. 578–604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 12.

59 Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’, p. 894.

60 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International practices’, p. 7.

61 Hopf, ‘The logic of habit in International Relations’.

62 Krisch, Nico, ‘Article 39’, in Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, Andreas Paulus, and Nikolai Wessendorf (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 1282 Google Scholar; Chesterman, Simon, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 114–121 Google Scholar.

63 Resolution 688 (1991); Wheeler, N. J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 141–146 Google Scholar, 165–70.

64 Resolution 816 (1993), para. 4; Fenton, N., Understanding the UN Security Council: Coercion or Consent? (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 151–153 Google Scholar.

65 Resolution 794 (1992), para. 10; Fenton, Understanding the UN Security Council, pp. 76–81.

66 Resolution 940 (1994), para. 4; Fenton, Understanding the UN Security Council, pp. 114–20.

67 Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, ‘Law, politics, and international governance’, pp. 262–7.

68 For example, resolutions 794 (1992) on Somalia and 841 (1993) on Haiti.

69 S/PV.3413, p. 10. Security Council documents are referenced by official symbols. S/PV denotes Verbatim Records of meetings; S/PRST denotes presidential statements; SC/ and S/ denote other documents, including Council press statements or reports to the Council.

70 S/PV.3145, p. 7.

71 Bellamy, Alex J., ‘The humanisation of security? Towards an international human protection regime’, European Journal of International Security, 1:1 (2016), p. 118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Jennifer Welsh, ‘The Security Council and humanitarian intervention’, in Lowe et al. (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War, p. 538.

73 Krisch, ‘Article 39’, pp. 1282–91.

74 Barnett, Michael N., ‘The UN Security Council, indifference, and genocide in Rwanda’, Cultural Anthropology, 12:4 (1997), pp. 551–578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ralph and Gifkins, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice’.

75 S/PRST/1999/6, emphasis added.

76 Resolution 1296 (2000), para. 5.

77 Crawford, Sue E., and Ostrom, Elinor, ‘A grammar of institutions’, American Political Science Review, 89:3 (1995), pp. 584–585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Hehir, Aidan, ‘The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Security, 38:1 (2013), pp. 151–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 There are similarities to the expansion of self-defence as a justification of war in state practice; see Hurd, Ian, ‘The permissive power of the ban on war’, European Journal of International Security, 2:1 (2017), pp. 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Resolution 1296 (2000), para 1.

81 Resolution 1674 (2006), referring to General Assembly resolution 60/1 (2005), paras 138–9.

82 Krisch, ‘Article 39’, pp. 1282–8; Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace? , pp. 127–62; E. de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council (Oxford: Hart, 2004), pp. 149–77; see also S/PRST/2014/3, 12 February 2014.

83 Krisch, ‘Article 39’, pp. 1291–3; Glanville, L., ‘Intervention in Libya: From sovereign consent to regional consent’, International Studies Perspectives, 14:3 (2013), pp. 330–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Chesterman, Simon, ‘Leading from behind: the Responsibility to Protect, the Obama Doctrine, and humanitarian intervention after Libya’, Ethics & International Affairs, 25:3 (2011), p. 280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Krisch, ‘The Security Council and great powers’, p. 137.

86 Hurd, ‘The permissive power of the ban on war’, p. 11.

87 Chesterman, ‘Leading from behind’, p. 280.

88 Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Norm contestation and the Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:4 (2013), pp. 375–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 See, for example, resolution 1564 (2004) on Sudan and resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) on Libya; and Gifkins, ‘R2P in the UN Security Council’.

90 Reinold, Theresa, ‘The “responsibility not to veto”, secondary rules, and the rule of law’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 6:3 (2014), pp. 269–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Pelc, Krzysztof, ‘The politics of precedent in international law: a social network application’, American Political Science Review, 108:3 (2014), pp. 547–564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Ann Swidler, ‘What anchors cultural practices?’, in Schatzki, Cetina, and von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, p. 90.

93 Czerny, Philip G., ‘Paradoxes of the competition state: the dynamics of political globalization’, Government and Opposition, 32:2 (1997), pp. 251–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollack, Mark A., ‘The new institutionalism and EC governance: the promise and limits of institutional analysis’, Governance, 9:4 (1996), p. 439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montanari, John R. and Adelman, Philip J., ‘The administrative component of organizations and the ratchet effect: a critique of cross‐sectional studies’, Journal of Management Studies, 24:2 (1987), pp. 113–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pouliot and Thérien, ‘The politics of inclusion’.

94 Pouliot and Thérien, ‘The politics of inclusion’, p. 234.

95 Interview 1 with former diplomat of a Western member state, 8 February 2016.

96 Krebs, Ronald R. and Jackson, Patrick T., ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), pp. 35–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 Interview 2 with former diplomat of a Western member state, 10 February 2016.

98 Interview 3 with former diplomat of a Western member state, 19 February 2016.

99 SC/10180, 22 February 2011, not mentioned by Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, ‘Power in practice’.

100 Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, p. 7 emphasises that timing provides important wiggle room in the (competent) performance of practices.

101 Hamilton, Rebecca, Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 199–200 Google Scholar; Contessi, ‘Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation’.

102 SC/8050, April 2004.

103 Associated Foreign Press (AFP), ‘US Willing to Call for UN Sanctions against Sudan’ (22 May 2004).

104 Traub, James, Unwilling and Unable: The Failed Response to the Atrocities in Darfur (New York: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, 2010), pp. 7–8 Google Scholar.

105 S/PRST/2004/18, May 2004.

106 Traub, Unwilling and Unable, p. 10.

107 See Algerian statement on their behalf, S/PV.5015, pp. 5–6.

108 See ambiguous statements by China, Brazil, and Pakistan, S/PV.5015, pp. 2–3, 8–10.

109 On China, see Wuthnow, J., ‘China and the processes of cooperation in UN Security Council deliberations’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3:1 (2010), p. 71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holslag, J., ‘China’s diplomatic manoeuvring on the question of Darfur’, Journal of Contemporary China, 17:54 (2008), p. 82 Google Scholar.

110 China and Pakistan abstained; see S/PV.5015.

111 France, S/PV.5015, p. 9, similar UK, US, and others.

112 Ibid., 10.

113 S/PV.5027, pp. 2–5.

114 See US statement in S/PV.5040, p. 5.

115 S/PV.5040, p. 5.

116 Traub, Unwilling and Unable, pp. 10–11.

117 Germany, S/PV.5040, p. 7.

118 Resolution 1564, paras 1, 14, and 12.

119 S/PV.5050, pp. 2–5; S/PV.5071, pp. 2–5; S/PV.5094, pp. 2–4.

120 S/2005/60, para. 584.

121 AFP, ‘UN Security Council Approves Sudan Sanctions’ (30 March 2005); Traub, Unwilling and Unable, p. 15.

122 Resolution 1591 (2005), para. 7.

123 AFP, ‘China Opposes U.N. Sanctions Against Sudan’ (31 March 2005).

124 Bolton, John R., Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad (New York: Threshold Editions, 2007), p. 349 Google Scholar.

125 Holslag, ‘China’s diplomatic manoeuvring on the question of Darfur’, p. 74.

126 See S/PRST/2006/21 and statements in S/PV. 5434.

127 Contessi, ‘Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation’, pp. 330–1.

128 S/PV.5434, p. 3; on Russia, ibid., p. 2.

129 US Permanent Mission to the UN, UNSC/Sudan: Proposed Way Forward in Securing Resolution for UN PKO in Darfur (06USUNNEWYORK1349_a) (New York, 2006).

130 US Embassy Khartoum, UN Peacekeeping USYG Guehenno Sees AU Faltering in Darfur (06KHARTOUM1459_a) (Khartoum, 2006).

131 US Permanent Mission to the UN, UNSC/Sudan: So Close Yet Still So Far Away from Darfur Resolution (06USUNNEWYORK1538_a) (New York, 2006).

132 US Permanent Mission to the UN, UNSC/Sudan: Council Meeting Will Proceed Despite Bashir’s Refusal to Participate (06USUNNEWYORK1621_a) (New York, 2006), also Security Council Report (SCR), ‘Monthly Forecast Sudan (Darfur)’ (31 August 2006).

133 S/PV.5519, p. 5.

134 S/PV.5519, pp. 4–5, 8–9; Bolton, Surrender is not an Option, p. 355.

135 Holslag, ‘China’s diplomatic manoeuvring on the question of Darfur’, pp. 78–80.

136 US Permanent Mission to the UN, AU/UN Hybrid in Darfur: Narrowing Differences (07USUNNEWYORK563_a) (New York, 2007).

137 Williams, Paul D. and Bellamy, Alex J., ‘The UN Security Council and the question of humanitarian intervention in Darfur’, Journal of Military Ethics, 5:2 (2006), pp. 144–160 Google Scholar; Gifkins, ‘R2P in the UN Security Council’, p. 156.

138 Garwood-Gowers, A., ‘China and the “Responsibility to Protect”: the implications of the Libyan intervention’, Asian Journal of International Law, 2:2 (2012), pp. 375–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charap, S., ‘Russia, Syria and the doctrine of intervention’, Survival, 55:1 (2013), pp. 35–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 SCR, ‘Insights on Syria’ (28 April 2011); AFP, ‘UN Fails to Agree on Condemning Syria’ (28 April 2011).

140 US, S/PV.6524, p. 4.

141 S/PV.6524; SCR, ‘Insights on Syria’ (28 April 2011); ‘Push in U.N. for criticism of Syria is rejected’, New York Times (28 April 2011), A12; Gifkins, J., ‘The UN Security Council divided: Syria in crisis’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 4:3 (2012), p. 381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142 Gifkins, The UN Security Council divided’, p. 382; SCR, ‘Draft Resolution on Syria’ (8 June 2011) and SCR, ‘Middle East Debate and Syria Developments’ (25 July 2011).

143 SCR, ‘Update Report No. 2’ (26 May 2011); SCR, ‘Draft Resolution on Syria’ (1 August 2011); SCR, ‘Draft Resolution on Syria’ (2 August 2011).

144 S/PRST/2011/16 of 3 August.

145 S/PRST/2012/6 and 10.

146 SCR, ‘Syria Presidential Statement and Press Statement’ (20 March 2012).

147 SCR, ‘Continuing Negotiations on a Syria Draft Resolutions’ (13 April 2012).

148 S/2011/612, S/PV/6627; SCR, ‘Syria Sanctions Resolution’ (25 August 2011); SCR, ‘Vote on a Syria Resolution’ (3 October 2011).

149 SCR, ‘Syria Sanctions Resolution’ (25 August 2011); SCR, ‘Vote on a Syria Resolution’ (3 October 2011).

150 S/PV.6627.

151 S/2012/77, S/PV.6711; SCR, ‘Syria Draft Resolution’ (3 February 2012).

152 S/2012/538, SCR, ‘Possible Vote on Syria Resolution’ (18 July 2012).

153 S/PV.6810.

154 S/2014/348.

155 S/PV.7180.

156 Resolutions 2254 (2015) and 2268 (2016).

157 SC/11028; S/PRST/2013/15; resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2401 (2018); Ralph and Gifkins, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice’, pp. 643–7.

158 Including resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), 2314 (2016), and 2319 (2016).