On the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations, one of the greatest challenges to the success of the United Nations has been the use, and the threat of use, of the veto power by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, particularly in the face of core international crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Such veto use, and the threat of the veto, has sometimes resulted in paralysis of the UN Security Council when it comes to addressing such crimes, blocking measures including referral to the International Criminal Court, despite ongoing large-scale atrocity crimes being committed and no realistic other prospects for comprehensive or international prosecutions.

Through the ACT Group’s Code of Conduct and the “French/Mexican initiative” nearly two-thirds of UN Member States have expressed their view that the veto should not be used in the face of such atrocity crimes. Yet, when not all permanent members join these praiseworthy initiatives (as is the case), the initiatives hit a snag and there is no veto restraint.

Recently, a new perspective to address this old conundrum has been presented for addressing veto use that blocks the Security Council from taking measures to address atrocity crimes when at least nine members of the Council are prepared to vote for the measures (such that the measure would otherwise pass). That is, examining such veto use in light of legal obligations created under the existing system of international law, so that such veto use is placed under legal scrutiny.

Some of the permanent members seemingly elevate one aspect of the Charter’s peace and security architecture—the veto power found in article 27 of the Charter—as if the rest of the Charter, jus cogens norms, and other foundational treaty obligations do not exist. This selective prioritization has prevented the UN Security Council from acting in situations where it otherwise might have been able to discourage, prevent, or stop atrocities, and/or refer them to the International Criminal Court for investigation and/or prosecution.

This panel will focus on arguments raised in Professor Trahan’s new book, Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (Cambridge U. Press 2020). There, she presents the arguments that veto use in the face of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity is at odds with (1) the protection of jus cogens norms, (2) the “Purposes and Principles” of the UN, and (3) certain foundational treaties, such as the 1948 Genocide Convention and 1949 Geneva Conventions—particularly, the obligation to “prevent” genocide contained in the Genocide Convention and the obligation to “ensure respect for” the Geneva Conventions contained in Common Article 1. The book also discusses how the blocking of referrals to the International Criminal Court stands at odds with certain legal obligations to “investigate” and/or “prosecute” atrocity crimes.

Join high-level legal experts in an engaging discussion of these matters.

Introduction by:

Ambassador Alie Kabba, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations

Moderator:

Anna Myriam Roccatello, Deputy Executive Director and Director of Programs, International Center for Transitional Justice

Panelists:

Professor Jennifer Trahan, NYU Center for Global Affairs & Director of the Concentration in International Law and Human Rights; author, Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (CUP 2020).

Ambassador (ret.) Hans Corell, former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, and Legal Counsel, United Nations

Justice Richard Goldstone, former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia & the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Chair, Independent Expert Review of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute System

Ambassador (ret.) Allan Rock, former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada, and former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations

This panel is co-sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the International Center for Transitional Justice and is a side-event to the meetings of the International Criminal Court's Assembly of States Parties.

The Key to Unblocking Security Council Referrals: Vetoes & Atrocity Crimes