S/PV.10043 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Angola, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Paraguay, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Ms. Loraine Sievers, Director of Security Council Procedure and co-author of The Procedure of the UN Security Council; and Ms. Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Executive Director of Security Council Report. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2025/719, which contains the text of a letter dated 6 November 2025 from the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary- General, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration. At this meeting, the Security Council will hear briefings by Ms. Loraine Sievers, Ms. Shamala Kandiah Thompson and Ambassador Christina Markus Lassen, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations, in her capacity as co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. I now give the floor to Ms. Sievers. Ms. Sievers: All other days of the year, when the Security Council meets in the Chamber, it is to take up a country- or region-specific matter or a thematic issue that relates substantively to the Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, these annual open debates on working methods are unique, in that this is the one day of each year when Council members and the wider United Nations membership meet to discuss how — by what modalities — the Council works to carry out this primary responsibility. And these open debates have developed over the years into an important opportunity for stocktaking and brainstorming. There are a number of working methods issues that will be prominent in today’s discussion because of their impact on how the Security Council functions and how it is perceived. These include increasing opportunities for penholding and penholding best practices; improving the process for appointing Chairs of the Council’s subsidiary organs; maintaining a balance between public and private meetings; enhancing relations with the wider United Nations membership, particularly troop- and police-contributing countries; and the 2026 appointment process for the next The question of how the Security Council conducts its meetings has become increasingly important over this past year. Given the urgent crises on the Council’s agenda, the world has been closely following what happens in this Chamber. Of course, people focus primarily on the statements made and votes on draft resolutions here. But even when Council members and non-member participants demonstrate starkly differing positions, the Security Council and the United Nations itself can gain credibility or lose credibility, depending on how orderly and professionally Council meetings are conducted. This is why today I would like to focus on three areas of working methods that relate to the Council’s formal public meetings. The first area is the participation of non-Council Member States in Council meetings. There have been contentions voiced during meetings or in statements released afterwards that a non-member was not invited when it should have been. Conversely, there have been complaints that a non-member was invited to participate despite objections raised by a Council member or even a non-member. Such disputes over participation risk creating ill will on both sides. Rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure gives as one criterion for participation the fact that the Council considers the interests of a non-member to be “specially affected”. Interestingly, the Security Council itself did not invent this term. Rather, the drafters of the Charter of the United Nations considered the opportunity for non-members to participate in Council meetings to be so important that they provided for it in Article 31, where the term “specially affected” originates, and in Article 32. Charter commentaries note that it is hard to give a definitive interpretation of the term “specially affected”, although geographic proximity appears to be one leading factor. In addition, it is generally considered that when one party to a situation is invited to participate, any other party to that situation should also be invited if they so request, but the Council must make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. There is also the issue of the timing of requests to participate, that is, whether there should be, prior to a meeting, an established cut-off after which requests would no longer be considered. These questions deserve careful attention. For this reason, it is a positive step that the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions is considering how the Council can develop more consistent practice regarding participation. It is a question of finding the right balance between giving fair access to non-members, while also respecting the need for moderation in numbers. A second issue that has emerged during formal meetings is the showing of visual materials. Increasingly, Council members and non-members have been holding up photos in the Chamber. For many, this detracts from the focus and decorum of a meeting. On this point, I can clarify, from my former experience in the Security Council Affairs Division, that there has long been an understanding that visuals displayed in the Chamber should be of evidentiary calibre. This is not to equate the Security Council with a court but to hold that visuals should be employed only to substantiate a factual point, not to create drama or merely stir emotions. In the case of showing films in the Chamber, the past practice has been first to obtain the Council’s approval. So, concerning the question of visuals too, it is constructive that the Informal Working Group is presently discussing possible guidelines. The third issue I would like to raise is the rate of delivering statements. The introduction of time limits for remarks at Council meetings has helped to make discussions more targeted and concise. The downside, however, has been that in order to fit within given time limits, many speakers are racing through their statements. Even when participants read prepared remarks, this can be done in such a way that listeners still feel that genuine dialogue is taking place. But if participants I would like to close by observing that since last year’s open debate on working methods (see S/PV.9571), there have been significant achievements. Among these, certainly, is the adoption of the fourth comprehensive presidential note, S/2024/507. Considerable credit is owed to last year’s Council members, notably Japan serving as Chair of the Informal Working Group, since this accomplishment was not easily achieved. Note S/2024/507 comprises 168 paragraphs — 105 more paragraphs than the very first presidential note 507 adopted in 2006 (S/2006/507). This validates the view that improving and refining the Council’s working methods is a continuous, ongoing process and a process to which I know today’s debate will make a meaningful contribution.

I thank Ms. Sievers for her briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson: I am grateful for the invitation to the Security Council Report to address this Council’s open debate on working methods. It is a privilege for Security Council Report to brief the Council on an issue that is core to the work of our Organization. When Security Council Report was launched 20 years ago, one of its main aims was to bring greater transparency to the work of the Security Council, and having witnessed the evolution of the Council over these two decades, I have seen first-hand how working methods and even small procedural shifts can meaningfully shape its ability to act. Today, I will cover three areas: the appointment of subsidiary body Chairs, informal meeting formats and the process of selecting the next Secretary-General. Turning first to the appointment of subsidiary body Chairs and Vice-Chairs, I will not dwell on the reasons why the appointment of the 2025 subsidiary body Chairs and Vice-Chairs was delayed until 29 May of this year. That story is well known to all Council members. Suffice it to say, it led to a serious disruption in the work of the subsidiary bodies. While this was the longest that this decision had been delayed, members found it hard to agree by 1 October — the date proposed in note by the President S/2024/507. Reaching agreement on the allocation of the Chairs is affected by the composition of incoming members, their level of interest in chairing particular bodies and, of course, which subsidiary bodies are available in a given year. It appears that in some years, the mix of available subsidiary bodies and incoming members made for easier choices than in others, and further complicating matters, the permanent members, who still play a central role in the appointment process, often have strong views about the suitability of particular members to chair certain committees. So, what can be done to improve this appointment process? I would like to offer some ideas that come from talking to members over the years as they were going through it. One idea would therefore be to provide the incoming five elected members with an early understanding of the respective roles of the Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and the permanent (P5) coordinator, who helps to facilitate the appointment process. This would be Possible options for allowing subsidiary bodies to function when there is no agreement by 31 December include the following. One option would be moving away from the allocation of subsidiary bodies as a package deal. This would allow bodies that are not contentious to continue their work, and Chairs continuing into a second year would not be affected. I understand that this is something that Ms. Sievers has also suggested in the past. Having the penholders for country- specific issues — mostly permanent members — chair the subsidiary bodies on those files until an agreement is reached is another possibility. A third option would be to consider having in each subsidiary body one Vice-Chair that remains in the Council and having that Vice-Chair assume the responsibilities of the Chair if there is no decision by 31 December. I know that none of these are perfect options, but they are things to think about. I will now turn to the informal meeting formats. Rule 48 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure states that unless it decides otherwise, the Council shall meet in public. This has given the Council considerable freedom to create informal meeting formats as needed. For example, in 1982 the Arria-formula meeting format was born because a Bosnian Croat priest had a story to tell about the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and there was no appropriate format for a confidential briefing by a civil society briefer. In 2008, the informal interactive dialogue format was created because the Council needed a way to speak with the African Union and the League of Arab States about the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. They needed a closed format that was not formal, and this format was then used the following year for a series of conversations around the conflict in Sri Lanka, which was not on the Council’s agenda. These examples show that when there has been a need, the Council has found a way. Today there is a need for the Council to build trust and better relations away from the public eye. Open meetings are useful for conveying Member State positions, but they do not allow for the type of interaction that leads to solutions and stronger outcomes. While informal consultations were conceived as a format for frank discussion of sensitive issues facing the Council, there has long been criticism that members largely reiterate their public views behind closed doors. Therefore, it may be time to better utilize some of these informal formats available to Council members. The informal interactive dialogue format, for one, is a format that could be used more regularly for closed-door conversations with Governments that are hosting United Nations missions or with affected parties. Closed Arria-formula meetings would allow for more private discussions with civil society briefers, who may be more comfortable providing frank analysis behind closed doors. Sofa talks, a format suggested at a time when tensions were high in the Council over Syria, were meant to allow members to build trust through informal meetings with no formal agenda. These sofa talks took place regularly in 2018 and 2019, but they have been used very infrequently in recent years. Members could consider reinstating this format, as a monthly occurrence, possibly. In addition, members could encourage the Secretary- General to restart the Secretary-General’s annual retreats with Council members, which were held for approximately 20 years but appear to have stopped a few years ago. These usually took place in May outside New York City, and once, the retreat was held in Sweden. Turning to the next Secretary-General and the selection process, Council members are currently negotiating the joint letter from the President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly, which is expected to provide the guidelines for the nomination of candidates and which will mark the formal start of the selection process. If the 2015–2016 timetable is adhered to, the joint letter would be issued by the end of the year. Having followed and reported on the 2016 process closely, I would like to make the following observation. Many of the changes implemented during the last selection process have been well documented. But some of the details of the process in the Security Council are not that well known, particularly the conduct of straw polls. In 2016, there were a number of non-papers on the modalities for straw polls, which were not made public. The permanent members, I would assume, probably have them in their filing cabinets or their shared drives, but the 10 elected members of the Security Council are unlikely to have access to them. It would be helpful if there were a way to preserve these documents and make them available to elected members. More broadly, it would be good for elected members to have access to a comprehensive repository of documents on the selection process. In 2026, elected members have five of the six presidencies between June and December, and these are crucial months for the straw polls. An understanding of the conduct of the straw polls, including when and how to hold them, is particularly important for a presidency in the year a new Secretary- General is selected and appointed. As the Council begins the search for the next Secretary-General, I wish all Council members all the best in working together to find the best person to lead the United Nations into the next phase. In conclusion, I believe that working methods are all the more essential as a guide for Council members as they navigate a world in flux and a multilateral system that is morphing into something new but as yet unknown. While geopolitical factors are critical in determining the Council’s effectiveness, investing in improving this body’s working methods can help inspire creative solutions for maintaining international peace and security in these difficult times.

I thank Ms. Thompson for her briefing. I now give the floor to Ambassador Lassen. Ms. Lassen: I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, Denmark and Pakistan. At the outset, we would like to thank Sierra Leone for organizing this critical open debate. We also welcome our briefers, Loraine Sievers of Security Council Procedure and Shamala Kandiah of Security Council Report, to the Chamber today. They are undeniable experts, and their organizations remain go-to resources for Security Council expertise. We are all aware that the Security Council holds the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It does so on behalf of all Member States. However, to fulfil that mandate effectively, the Council must not only act decisively, but also operate in a manner that is transparent, inclusive and worthy of the confidence of the wider membership through its working methods. In our discussions on the Council’s working methods, our aim should not be to reopen settled debates arbitrarily, but to build on the foundation laid by note by the President S/2017/507. On the one hand, we must ensure that our procedures are fit for purpose and that they are implemented consistently. On the other hand, we should not be afraid to adapt them to meet new realities and new challenges as they arise. Indeed, since the adoption of presidential note 507 in 2017, 17 new notes have been adopted and subsequently incorporated and streamlined into the updated note last year (S/2024/507). As co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group, we have also identified several core topics for discussion, while maintaining the flexibility needed to address emerging issues. Our first Informal Working Group meeting was held on 21 July, more than halfway through the year. The unprecedented delay in the allocation of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the subsidiary bodies provides a clear reminder: the Council’s working methods are not merely procedural formalities, but the very mechanisms that enable it to function effectively. When these processes are delayed or disrupted, the Council’s capacity to work effectively is hindered. Clarifying and improving the procedures outlined in presidential note 507 as regards this process is therefore essential for the Council’s work. As the high number of speakers inscribed on today’s list of speakers demonstrates, the wider United Nations membership has a keen interest in how the Council operates. It is our view that rule 37 and rule 39 participants enhance the deliberations of the Council. That is true of open debates but also of debates and briefings in which the voices of those concerned and affected are highly relevant. As a Council, we should therefore work to ensure that this crucial role, as the avenue for wider participation and inclusivity, is consistently, transparently and fairly applied. As co-Chairs, we stand ready to facilitate further discussion on this critical topic and welcome suggestions on a consensus-based path forward. As the year draws to a close, the Council is approaching the assumption of one of its most significant responsibilities, namely the process of selection of the next Secretary-General. Despite the Charter of the United Nations devoting only 17 words to it, this process is, at its core, a matter of working methods. In the coming months, the Council will be discussing how it votes, how it engages with candidates and how it informs the wider membership of its progress and its outcomes. These are fundamentally questions of process and working methods, and we believe that they should be guided by the principles of transparency, inclusivity and predictability, that the process should be structured and timely and that all Council members should engage actively and equally. In conclusion, working methods, ultimately, are the vehicle through which the Council implements its mandate. They are not a technical afterthought but a political tool in our collective pursuit of maintaining international peace and security. As co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group, Denmark and Pakistan are committed to a Security Council that is accountable, effective, transparent and representative. We will continue to engage with all Council members and to listen to the views of the wider membership. Following today’s debate, we will prepare the co-Chairs’ analytical summary and facilitate a discussion on the suggestions raised in the upcoming meetings of the Informal Working Group. We look forward to ideas and proposals from all Member States in this regard. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

I thank our briefers. We all collectively benefit from their exceptional institutional knowledge and continued close following of the Council’s evolving working methods. Let me also thank Denmark and Pakistan for their joint stewardship of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Underlying the United Kingdom’s approach to working methods is our desire for an action-oriented Security Council that is able to build consensus and reach compromises through constructive and informed debate. The United Kingdom therefore welcomes today’s open debate as an opportunity to reiterate our commitment to the full implementation of note by the President S/2017/507, which underwent a significant update under Japan’s leadership of the Informal Working Group last year (see S/2024/507). At that time, we were pleased to work with Council members to make amendments to enhance the Security Council’s transparency and accountability, while still preserving the important principle of confidentiality, including in areas such as access to historic documentation. We are committed to responsible and effective penholding, taking into account the views of countries concerned and those of the region, including in both bilateral discussions and through their participation in relevant Council meetings under rule 37. And we remain resolute in seeking to build consensus across the Council. This includes, where appropriate and mutually agreeable, co-penning products, as we have done, for example, with the African members of the Council on Libya and the Sudan. We note the impact the delay in agreeing on subsidiary body Chairs this year has had on Committee work. And we look forward to working with all current and incoming Council members to come to an agreement on a package for 2025 to give incoming Chairs sufficient time to prepare. As members of the Security Council, we all have a stake in preserving its integrity and upholding its mandate of maintaining international peace and security. To that end, the United Kingdom remains committed to working with everyone around this table to continually review the Council’s working methods in a collective effort to strengthen its effectiveness and efficiency.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the 10 elected members of the Security Council, namely Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Panama, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Slovenia, the Republic of Korea and Pakistan. We thank the briefers — Loraine Sievers, Shamala Kandiah Thompson and Ambassador Christina Lassen, my fellow co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions — for their invaluable input on improving the working methods of the Security Council. We, the elected members, take very seriously the responsibility entrusted to us through our election by the General Assembly. We are committed to a Council that demonstrates both the determination and the capability to take decisive action, fulfils its mandate effectively and is more transparent, inclusive, responsive and representative. We stress that note by the President S/2017/507 remains a living document, which requires continuous review. In this regard, updating presidential note 507, as necessary, in response to contemporary needs is crucial for the Council’s effectiveness. At the same time, it is equally important that the Council reviews, Allow me to highlight a few issues of priority in that regard.First, we stress the need for the early appointment of Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Council’s subsidiary bodies, which is essential not only for their smooth functioning but also to help to maintain continuity among the outgoing, current and incoming elected members. The process must be carried out in an efficient, timely, transparent and structured manner, and the agreement of elected members on the distribution of seats must be respected. We emphasize that the practice of having elected members chair subsidiary bodies is a hard-won reform, aimed at ensuring more balanced and inclusive participation in the Council’s work. The process of selection should be pursued with the equal involvement of all Council members. The contingency measure for the distribution of Chairs should not be interpreted as allowing time until the end of January or beyond, and all efforts must be made to agree on appointments for the following year, preferably by 1 October. We regret that this deadline has not been met this year, once again, and we encourage all Council members to engage constructively to reach consensus. Any contingency measures for delayed appointments under exceptional circumstances must be strictly time-bound and should not normalize expanded roles for presidencies in the work of the subsidiary bodies. Second, there is broad recognition for more meaningful and effective participation of elected members in penholding. The legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council can be greatly improved through a more inclusive and representative approach to penholdership. The provisions of presidential note 507 in this regard, including the need to ensure that the arrangement of penholder or co-penholder reflects openness, a shared responsibility and fair burden-sharing, must be implemented by having more elected members assume this responsibility on an equitable basis. Equally important is the conduct of penholders and co-penholders, which must adhere to the provisions of presidential note 507. This adherence includes, on the one hand, the need to informally consult countries directly involved or specifically affected and to take into full consideration their views and concerns, and on the other hand, the need to ensure that the drafting of all documents, such as resolutions, presidential statements and press statements, is carried out in an inclusive and respectful manner. Penholdership should abide by objectivity and impartiality during the drafting and negotiation process and prioritize forging consensus and promoting the unity of the Council. Third, the E10 welcomes the continuation of the practice for Council presidencies to circulate and implement monthly working methods commitments, as stipulated in presidential note 507. We encourage all Council members to prepare such commitments. Fourth, recognizing the relevance of rule 37, we reaffirm the need to ensure the participation of States that are directly affected by or geographically proximate to a situation under the Council’s consideration. The inclusion of such States and of representatives of the Secretariat and other relevant persons under rule 39 provides valuable context and contributes to more balanced and informed deliberations and decision-making. Fifth, access to relevant documentation for the 10 elected members is necessary to ensure fairness, transparency and equality. We recognize the achievement that the inclusion of new provisions in presidential note 507, initiated by Algeria, represents in affirming that all members of the Security Council shall be afforded the same level of access to documentation to ensure equal examination of issues under active consideration. We further recognize the necessity for these provisions to be fully Sixth, we believe that the perspectives of civil society, including women civil society briefers, bring added value to the Council’s deliberations, while fully respecting the intergovernmental nature of the Council. We welcome the updates to presidential note 507 on mitigating the risks and threats of reprisals and ensuring the full, safe and meaningful participation of these briefers in our work, and we encourage further discussion, including on how to promote best practices on the promotion of a zero-tolerance approach. For the safety of civil society briefers, all efforts should be made to prevent and respond to threats and reprisals, in coordination with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant United Nations and civil society partners. Seventh, the Council should strengthen its engagement with the wider United Nations membership and its cooperation with the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies, notably the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). The Council and its subsidiary bodies should actively, in a timely manner and with more specific requests, seek the valuable advice that the PBC can provide, including on preventive diplomacy and cooperation with local actors, regional and subregional organizations; on country-specific, regional and thematic files; and on the formation, review and drawdown of the mandates of peace operations, with a view to reflecting the longer- term perspective required for peacebuilding and sustaining peace and to enriching the discussion on mandates and the potential for cooperation on field missions. The Council should also strengthen cooperation with the PBC in relation to countries transitioning off its agenda, with due respect for national ownership. Eighth, the provisions contained in presidential note 507 on enhancing interaction and consultation with troop- and police-contributing countries must be fully implemented, including with regard to urgent situations that affect their operations, in cases of transition from a peacekeeping operation to peacebuilding and of major operational changes, such as withdrawal, downsizing or termination. Ninth, targeted sanctions are an important tool available to the Council to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security. They are therefore critical to the execution of the Council’s mandate. We strongly believe in the need to strengthen due process and the fairness and clarity of United Nations sanctions procedures, thereby increasing the legitimacy and effectiveness of United Nations sanctions regimes. We stress their function as a preventive measure. Sanctions must not have adverse humanitarian consequences for civilian populations or adversely affect humanitarian activities carried out by humanitarian organizations or United Nations agencies. In this regard, we recall the adoption of resolutions 2664 (2022) and 2761 (2024), which introduced cross-cutting humanitarian exemptions for United Nations sanctions regimes, and we underline the need for their implementation at the national level. The newly established Informal Working Group on General Security Council Sanctions Issues can play a critical role in the review and improvement of United Nations sanctions. Tenth, in response to the growing urgency of increasing the effectiveness of the ability of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security, the E10 underscores the urgent need for comprehensive reform of the Security Council through the process of intergovernmental negotiations mandated by the General Assembly, as also affirmed in the Pact for the Future, in order to make the Council more effective, efficient, representative, inclusive, transparent, accountable and democratic. There is a need to redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority, while treating Africa as a special case. Twelfth, recommending the next Secretary-General of the United Nations to the General Assembly will constitute one of the most important tasks for the Security Council in 2025–2026. The E10 aims to play an active and constructive role, with the objective of increasing the transparency, predictability and inclusivity of the process, while promoting effective engagement with the candidates and keeping the broader membership regularly informed. Lastly, the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in the work of the Council remains a high priority. There is a need to integrate gender perspectives across the working methods. We also encourage United Nations briefers to integrate women and peace and security issues and gender analysis into their briefings to the Council. All efforts should be undertaken to increase gender inclusivity. We remain concerned about the frequent use of the veto. In recent months, the Council failed to adopt important resolutions, owing to the use of the veto. The use or threat of use of the veto may prevent the Council from acting on vital topics, even regarding measures that have already been decided upon by the Council itself in the past. The E10 reiterates its call for restraint on the use of and limits on the scope of the veto. In conclusion, we, the 10 elected members of the Security Council, speak with one voice in reaffirming our commitment today to living up to the responsibility bestowed upon us through our election by the Members of the United Nations and to working together towards a more transparent, inclusive and representative Council for all — one capable of taking timely and effective action, with the aim of contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. I beg the indulgence of the Council, as this statement was long, but it was delivered on behalf of the E10, and so we had to say all that we wanted to say.

I would like to begin by thanking our speakers, Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Shamala Kandiah Thompson, for their insightful briefings, and I will endeavour to speak slowly, as instructed by Ms. Sievers. I also wish to thank Denmark and Pakistan for their stewardship at the helm of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and Sierra Leone for scheduling this important debate in the Council. The Security Council must be in a position to fulfil its role in international peace and security, which are the duties and responsibilities conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations. The working methods that it adopts are a vehicle for open multilateralism, grounded in universal values and defined by the law that we uphold. It is through these methods that the Council discharges its mandate. Accordingly, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that the Council’s working methods evolve with the times so as to enhance its effectiveness and legitimacy. In this connection, we welcome the significant efforts undertaken in 2024 to update note by the President S/2017/507, a reference when it comes to the Council’s recent practice and the measures taken in respect of the conduct of its proceedings. As I am speaking exclusively on behalf of France, I will confine myself to three points. First, the Security Council must not lose its decision-making and operational character. In concrete terms, this means striking the right balance between public diplomacy and work behind closed doors. Public meetings are beneficial, for they imbue the Council’s work with transparency. They also allow women and civil society Amid a proliferation of crises, the Council cannot afford to be a talking shop. Limiting speaking times and restricting the number of open debates are useful measures for making optimal use of our resources and our time. We must ensure that the Council’s proceedings never lose sight of the situation on the ground that it is seeking to address. To this end, efforts to streamline and clarify texts are necessary, starting with the mandates of peace operations. Close consultations with the United Nations, the parties, troop contributors and regional neighbours are more than just good practice; they are crucial. France is playing its full part in this regard when it comes to the mandates for which it is responsible as a penholder. Secondly, improved working methods will never be a substitute for a spirit of responsibility and compromise. Codification is not a panacea. The quest for solutions rests, first and foremost, on our collective commitment. Assuming responsibility entails, above all, engaging in good faith in negotiations and being capable of making the necessary compromises so that the Council can deliberate and take decisions for the sake of international peace and security. Assuming responsibility further entails fostering convergence and consensus by adhering to the rules and the pace of negotiations — negotiations that enable every member of the Council to state their position so that it can be taken on board. The penholders bear primary responsibility for that endeavour. It also means putting the pooling of ideas above exclusively pursuing national priorities. Every member of the Council must have a sense of being entrusted with the same mission: promoting unanimity in our joint pronouncements. Assuming responsibility entails refraining from using the Council as a platform for disinformation, overwhelming it with purely propagandistic meetings or making a mockery of it by having frivolous speakers appear. The quality and soundness of our discussions determine the credibility and legitimacy of the Council. Thirdly and lastly, aside the working methods, it is the Council itself that must evolve. France is putting forward ambitious reform of the composition of the Council, which must become more representative. This involves expanding the two categories of members, with each afforded their own rights and particular attention paid to the African continent; France supports a greater African presence, including among the permanent members. I will conclude by saying that to overcome any deadlock that the Council may face, permanent members must make judicious use of the veto. Since 2015, France has been working with Mexico on an initiative proposing a voluntary and collective suspension of the veto in the event of mass atrocities. This initiative has since garnered the support of 107 States. We call on all States, and the permanent members in particular, to subscribe to it.

We are grateful to the Permanent Representative of Denmark, Christina Lassen, for her statement and for her joint chairing of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, with the Permanent Representative of Pakistan, Asim Ahmad. We listened attentively to the briefings by Loraine Sievers and Shamala Kandiah Thompson. The Russian Federation has consistently supported the Security Council’s annual discussion of its working methods in an open format. We believe that periodic reviews allow potential ways of further fine-tuning and streamlining the Council’s work to be identified. Over the years, the Council has accomplished much in this regard, with numerous practical proposals and initiatives being put forward by Member States in the Council’s Chamber and forming the basis of the compendium of the Security Council’s working practices, known as the note by the President S/2017/507. The We welcome the efforts of the erstwhile Chairs of Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which formed the basis for additional notes of the President, aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Council, including its subsidiary bodies. The joint efforts of Council members culminated in the adoption of the updated presidential note S/2024/507. We call on the current Chairs of the Working Group, Denmark and Pakistan, to focus, first and foremost, on the practical implementation of its provisions. We stand ready to provide every possible assistance in this painstaking endeavour. It is regrettable that, in recent years, the Council has increasingly contended with its agenda being watered down by extraneous issues, in particular human rights, the climate and other matters. Those behind such initiatives invariably hide behind noble intentions. The United Nations itself has become a victim of this policy. Its field presences are assigned ancillary tasks that do not contribute to stability, while the views of the host countries themselves are often disregarded. Ultimately, this serves only to fuel social grievances vis-à-vis the United Nations, reducing its effectiveness and undermining its authority. As a result, many host countries are increasingly seeking to rid themselves of a United Nations presence. Also striking is the obstinate refusal of Western colleagues to reconsider sanctions against countries in which restrictive measures no longer reflect the current situation. The sanctions stick is being used in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Sudan, South Sudan and the Central African Republic by some States as their lever of choice in bringing external political pressure to bear, under the banner of the United Nations. Despite clear indications that the reasons for imposing sanctions no longer apply, our Western colleagues keep on finding new and supposedly “incontrovertible” evidence and arguments to keep them in place, unchanged. We regret to note the Council’s acute lack of capacity for constructive discussion and negotiation. There remains the pressing matter of penholdership. There are only three delegations that continue to act as penholders on most issues. Despite the fact that they lost their status as colonial Powers long ago, they continue to proceed from the premise of their “exceptionalism”, casting themselves as mentors vis-à-vis other States and regions. At the same time, what is being completely ignored is the opinions of host countries and regional players, which often have a better grasp of the situation on the ground, and sometimes even the views of representatives of the Secretariat. A still relevant example of the abuse of the status of penholder is seen in the methodology for reaching agreement on Security Council resolutions. This work is frequently carried out with artificial deadlines looming overhead, which do not allow for a comprehensive expert-level review of documents. As a result, documents that are clearly raw, so to speak, and that fail to take into account the key concerns of Security Council members provide unclear instructions to the Secretariat and are often unrealistic in terms of aims and purposes. Russia has consistently advocated for expanding the span of penholders, primarily by including non-permanent members of the Security Council. In this We advocate striking a balance between open and closed Security Council meetings. We see that some Council members are blatantly abusing the open format of meetings in order to put on a propaganda show. At the same time, when it comes to matters that are sensitive for them, they prefer to discuss those matters behind closed doors. We have also repeatedly pointed out the excessive documentation flow in the Council. Every year, the Security Council produces several hundred documents. The added value of some of them, alas, is dubious. In turn, we consistently proceed from the assumption that the final products of the Security Council should be concise, clear, comprehensible and, most importantly, action-oriented. Next year, the Council will be faced with the very important duty of selecting a candidate for the post of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. As President of the Security Council in October, Russia promptly responded to the numerous calls from the international community and duly started work for agreement to be reached on a joint letter from the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly, acting strictly in line with existing practice. We trust that the document will be adopted shortly, formally launching this important process. We hope that the efforts of the Security Council members will facilitate the selection of the worthiest candidate for the future head of the Secretariat. (spoke in English) I spoke too long, but I spoke on behalf of some 90 constituent subjects of the Russian Federation.

First of all, I would like to thank Ambassador Lassen, Ms. Sievers and Ms. Kandiah for their briefings. I thank non-Council members for their attention to the topic and their active participation in today’s meeting. The Charter of the United Nations entrusts the Security Council with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Council’s working methods have never been just a technical matter. They are central to the effectiveness of the Council’s work and to the role and authority of the United Nations. At present, unilateralism, power politics and the cold war mentality are rampant, posing serious challenges to the multilateral system. It is imperative for the Security Council to revisit its founding mission, uphold sound principles, clarify directions for improvement and strengthen unity and cooperation to inject greater stability and positive energy into a turbulent world. I would like to share the following observations. First, we should advocate consultation on an equal footing and build broad consensus. In recent years, the number of consensus outcomes produced by the Council has dropped significantly, with many draft resolutions being forced to a vote despite substantial disagreements. This not only deepens internal divisions and contradictions within the Council but also undermines the political weight and effective authority of resolutions, making their subsequent implementation extremely difficult. Council members should respect and understand each other, listen to and accommodate each other’s legitimate concerns and strive wholeheartedly to reach consensus. While the process of consultation may be time-consuming and demand efforts, consensus outcomes can better withstand the test of history and reality. In this regard, the role of the penholder is particularly crucial. Serving as a penholder is a responsibility, not a privilege. It should be used to bridge differences and build Secondly, we should focus on core mandates and enhance quality, efficiency and effectiveness. Taking the UN80 Initiative as an opportunity, the Council should revisit the founding principles of the Charter, concentrate on its core mandates and strengthen its leadership role in the United Nations pillar of peace and security. The Council should also start with small steps to overcome formalism and bureaucracy. We should streamline meeting schedules, adjust deliberation cycles in a timely manner in response to evolving situations on the ground and reduce the frequency of discussions on broad agenda items that are repetitive or have little effect. We need to limit the duration of meetings and the length of speeches, encourage like-minded countries to make joint statements, avoid lengthy and vague outcome documents and enhance the readability and operability of such documents. We should also flexibly determine meeting formats based on actual needs, appropriately increase informal consultations and promote frank and efficient communication among members. Thirdly, we should insist on results-driven effort and pragmatic actions. The Security Council should comprehensively utilize all tools granted by the Charter to advance political solutions of hotspot issues. In accordance with Chapter VI of the Charter, we should implement the spirit of resolution 2788 (2025) and prioritize peaceful means, such as dialogue, negotiation, good offices and mediation, to resolve disputes. Sanctions, as a special tool granted to the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, aim to create favourable conditions for political solutions and should not replace diplomatic efforts. The Council should handle sanctions with prudence and responsibility, adjusting or lifting them in a timely manner as circumstances evolve, and seek to mitigate their negative impacts on humanitarian situations and economic livelihoods. The Council should also, in line with the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Charter, support regional mechanisms such as the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the League of Arab States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in leveraging their unique strength to resolve regional issues through regional approaches. Fourthly, we should exercise the veto power prudently and uphold fairness and justice. The veto system is a necessary arrangement to encourage coordination among major Powers and prevent confrontation among them. It is a safety valve installed in the Security Council by the United Nations Charter. Historical practice shows that this system has generally fulfilled its intended purpose. However, in recent years, a certain country has disregarded the overwhelming voice of the international community and repeatedly abused its veto power on the Gaza issue, blocking Council actions and sparking significant controversy. China calls on the relevant country to heed the voice of the international community, earnestly shoulder its responsibility as a major Power and exercise its veto power prudently, on the basis of respecting international law and upholding fairness and justice. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China has consistently participated in the work of the Council with a responsible attitude, supporting its role and upholding its authority. We stand ready to continue working with all parties to foster a spirit of solidarity and cooperation, explore effective ways to improve working methods and enable the Council to better discharge its duties and play a constructive role in maintaining international peace and security.

I offer many thanks to Sierra Leone for convening this important debate, and I thank all our briefers for their contributions to this debate. As we look ahead to the selection of the next Secretary-General, the United States looks forward to a Secretary-General who shares this vision of returning the United Nations to its founding purpose of maintaining international peace and security. We believe that the process for the selection of such an important position should be purely merit-based, with as wide a pool of candidates as possible. We therefore welcome candidates from all regional groupings. Lastly, we would like to thank the Security Council Affairs Division and other members of the Secretariat for their continued operational legwork behind the scenes in support of the Council’s work.

I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than three minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Flashing lights on the collars of the microphones will prompt speakers to bring their remarks to a close after three minutes. I now give the floor to the representative of Kazakhstan.

Amid growing global challenges and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the working methods of the Security Council remain a valuable platform for constructive dialogue and pragmatic progress. We thank Sierra Leone for convening this debate, and Denmark and Pakistan for their leadership of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also value the insights shared by today’s briefers, who are well-known experts on the Security Council’s working methods. The credibility of the Council depends not only on the substance of its decisions but also on the integrity and inclusiveness of the process through which they are taken. Transparent and accountable working methods are the foundation of trust within the Council and the wider United Nations membership. These priorities reflect the vision of my President, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who, at the eightieth session of the General Assembly, emphasized that the reform of the United Nations is a strategic necessity to restore trust, inclusivity and effectiveness in multilateralism. Kazakhstan welcomes the adoption of the updated note by the President (S/2024/507) and supports its consistent and balanced implementation. We advocate a fair and transparent approach to penholdership and co-penholdership and a balanced distribution of responsibilities in chairing subsidiary bodies, ensuring the meaningful participation of elected members and a true sense of shared ownership. Strengthening the security-development nexus remains essential, as lasting peace is impossible without social and economic progress. Close engagement and burden-sharing among the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other United Nations bodies, combined with the revitalization of visiting Council I would now like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Council to an issue that is not controversial in character but is rather one that helps to enhance the dignity of the Security Council. Many Council members have taken part in the flag installation ceremony for newly elected non-permanent members and have witnessed how meaningful this moment can be, especially for those joining the Council for the first time. We are going to hold another one on 2 January 2026 for the next cohort of incoming Member States joining the Security Council, together with the President of the Council for January — Somalia. The dignified and symbolic tradition, now cherished and supported by Member States, requires no additional resources, yet it carries deep significance. It highlights the unity and cooperation that underpin the Council’s work and provides an opportunity to honour the newly elected members as they assume the solemn responsibility of maintaining international peace and security — one of the highest mandates entrusted by the United Nations. For elected members, this moment is more than a ceremony. It is a recognition of the trust placed in them by the international community and a reminder that their voice and vision enrich the Council’s deliberations. It also symbolizes continuity, mutual respect and shared responsibility, reminding us that beyond political differences, the Council remains one body, united in purpose and guided by the enduring principles of the Charter of the United Nations. To preserve this positive practice and the spirit of collegiality it fosters, it would be both fitting and practical to reflect the flag installation ceremony within presidential note 507. Recognizing it as part of the Council’s working methods would reflect the significance of the moment, institutionalize the ceremony and provide a unique opportunity for participants to present their vision and the priorities of their membership to a broader audience. Kazakhstan, as the initiator of the ceremony in 2018, is ready to cooperate with the Working Group on this matter and would appreciate a follow-up. Since this issue is not of a political nature but rather is a procedural one, we hope that we will be able to put the necessary language in presidential note 507 before the January event. If not, then, of course, Kazakhstan will continue initiating it by itself. Lastly, Kazakhstan reaffirms its unwavering commitment to a more transparent, effective and representative Council — one that is guided by dialogue, inclusivity and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

I congratulate you, my brother, Ambassador Michael Kanu, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone, on assuming the presidency of the Council for November and commend you for convening this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council, which in itself represents a practical application of how to improve the Council’s work and strengthen its engagement with the wider United Nations membership. I thank Denmark for its valuable briefings in this context. I would like to make the following points in that regard. First, Egypt welcomes the points raised in note by the President S/2024/507 and other proposals and views, which contribute to enhancing the Council’s efficiency and improving its working methods. Egypt also welcomes the periodic review of the note by the President S/2017/507 to bring it more in line with the Council’s working practices. Second, we also welcome the monthly meetings convened by successive presidencies of the Council, whether they are held at the beginning of a presidency Third, we welcome the increased frequency of open format meetings in the Council and call for this practice to be continued and strengthened, be it in Council meetings, the subsidiary bodies or the sanctions committees. We must not forget that the Security Council represents the general membership. Its meetings and work, as a general rule, must therefore not be withheld from the wider membership. Fourth, Council members must make greater efforts to communicate and reach necessary agreement on the chairmanship of the subsidiary bodies, as delays in securing a consensus are not in the interests of the Council or the wider membership and hinder the Council’s ability to perform the role expected of it. We hope that the Council will not experience such delays again. Fifth, it is necessary to circulate draft resolutions and presidential statements being considered by the Council to the wider membership through a defined, formal mechanism that is accessible to all and informs States of developments in the related consultations, while giving the wider membership the greatest opportunity to convey their views and proposals on those drafts to Council members. It is also important to make the written texts of briefings and statements delivered in the Council available on the Council’s website or in the United Nations Journal, which is the practice followed by the General Assembly. Sixth, it is important for the Council to consult with the States and regional and subregional organizations relevant to the conflicts being addressed by the Council, its subsidiary bodies and its committees, in particular the African Union and the League of Arab States. Seventh, while acknowledging that there has been progress on the issue of penholding, we believe that there is room for greater development, including by rotating the penholder role among all members. It is unreasonable and unacceptable that just a few permanent members continue to monopolize penholding on certain files indefinitely. This responsibility should instead be rotated among permanent and non-permanent members alike, in a manner that enriches the Council’s work and benefits from all expertise. There is no shortage of proposals to improve the working methods of the Security Council, its subsidiary organs and its sanctions committees. What truly matters is the political will to adopt these proposals and a genuine conviction that improving working methods will enhance the added value of the Council and its subsidiary bodies and committees and strengthen their credibility before the wider membership. It is also inconceivable that, while the dominant conversation across the Organization is one of reform, especially in the context of the Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative, the Security Council remains resistant to reform despite mounting evidence that it is in urgent need of comprehensive reform across all aspects and areas of its work. We therefore continue to call for reform of the Council through the intergovernmental negotiations, in a manner that expands its membership in both categories, grants the African continent two permanent seats with veto power and two additional non-permanent seats and provides the Group of Arab States permanent representation commensurate with the prominence on the Council’s agenda of issues concerning the Group.

I now give the floor to the representative of Chile.

We thank Sierra Leone for convening this debate. We also acknowledge the leadership of the co-Chairs of Chile believes that improving the Council’s working methods is not an administrative exercise. Rather, it is an opportunity to bring the Council closer to the values that confer legitimacy upon it — namely, trust, coherence and accountability. That is the only way that we can meet the expectations of peoples, who expect the United Nations to make fair, inclusive and effective decisions. Implementation of note by the President S/2024/507 constitutes an important step towards a more transparent and inclusive Council. However, gaps persist, and we must tackle them decisively. It is essential to make the rotation of responsibilities more predictable, expand access to information on internal processes and ensure more effective participation by countries that are not Council members. These are concrete measures that must be taken to build a more open, legitimate and representative Council. In addition, we believe that the Council must assess the impact of its decisions and resolutions more systematically, through a structured dialogue with the affected countries and the Organization’s main organs. Learning from experience, identifying challenges and correcting errors will strengthen the coherence of our actions and will help to bridge the Council’s internal divisions. With regard to the process of appointing Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the subsidiary bodies, the delays this year attest to the need for a more transparent, equitable and timely process. The distribution of responsibilities must reflect the Council’s geographical and political diversity and guarantee the institutional continuity of its work. Similarly, rule 37 must be applied in a consistent, clear and non-restrictive manner, ensuring meaningful participation by States directly affected by the items on the agenda. Smoother cooperation between the Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council is also essential to ensure coherent and complementary decisions on peace, development and human rights matters. Transparency must not be an isolated principle, but instead a cross-cutting practice throughout the multilateral system. Looking ahead to the election of the next Secretary-General in 2026, Chile advocates an open and participatory process in which gender equity prevails. Eighty years on, the time has come for the United Nations to be led by a woman, one whose leadership and vision can contribute to revitalizing the multilateral system and restoring the credibility that it needs to tackle the challenges of our time. In addition, the principle of regional rotation must be respected. I believe that the time has come for Latin America and the Caribbean — a zone of peace with a rich diplomatic tradition and a firm commitment to multilateralism — to shine. That was reaffirmed by the ministers of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in the ministerial declaration adopted in New York during this year’s high-level week. Lastly, Chile reaffirms its commitment to a more representative, effective and transparent Council that acts on behalf of all Member States, is accountable to them and is able to forge unity, even amid adversity. Only thus can this organ fulfil the mandate that the Charter confers upon it, that of maintaining international peace and security on the basis of dialogue, equity and cooperation among peoples,

I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Portugal aligns itself with the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group and wishes to thank Denmark and Pakistan, in their capacity as co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for their leadership on this topic. We also express our appreciation to the briefers, Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Shamala Kandiah, for their We would like to add six points in our national capacity. First, we welcome the progress achieved over the past year, notably the adoption of the expanded note by the President S/2024/507, which reflects the Council’s sustained efforts to update and refine its working methods. As highlighted today, this is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process. The note provides a strong framework to enhance transparency, inclusivity and efficiency. We do support its full and consistent implementation. Secondly, on subsidiary bodies, Portugal recognizes the complexity of the appointment process and the genuine efforts of Council members to reach timely agreement. Building on the constructive ideas mentioned today, we believe that pragmatic safeguards, such as allowing outgoing Chairs and Vice-Chairs to temporarily continue their functions when needed, can help ensure continuity. These measures could be practical tools to preserve institutional stability. Thirdly, on participation, Portugal values the thoughtful reflections shared by Ms. Sievers on the application of rule 37, which governs the participation of countries not on the Council whose interests are deemed to be especially affected by a situation under consideration. We agree that this is an area in which greater clarity can enhance confidence and prevent misunderstandings. Developing more consistent practice while preserving the Council’s flexibility would help to ensure the meaningful participation of specially affected States and strengthen the Council’s relationship with the wider membership. Fourthly, Portugal places great emphasis on reinforcing the links between the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Peacebuilding Commission and troop- and police-contributing countries. As highlighted by both briefers, strengthened interaction — through more systematic consultations, timely dialogue before mandate renewals and better use of informal formats — can help to build trust and improve the effectiveness of the Council’s decisions. We strongly support exploring these practical avenues, especially at a time of broader reflection on peacekeeping and ahead of UN80. Fifthly, the selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General will be a significant moment for the credibility of the Organization in 2026. Portugal supports the call to codify a clearer and more inclusive process, aligned with the most recent resolution on the revitalization of the General Assembly (General Assembly resolution 79/327) and informed by lessons from 2015–2016. We also concur with today’s suggestion that preserving relevant documents and modalities would greatly assist incoming elected members as they prepare for this responsibility. The timely issuance of the joint letter launching the process will also be important. Sixthly and lastly, Portugal attaches importance to transparency and accountability regarding the use of the veto. Without prejudging its exercise, we consider that the Security Council’s annual report should systematically reference the special reports triggered by vetoes and the related debates in the General Assembly. This would improve the coherence of the reporting cycle and provide a fuller picture to the wider membership. In conclusion, today’s debate has shown that working methods are not a technical sidebar, but a central element of the Council’s credibility and its capacity to deliver. Portugal welcomes the intention of the co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group to follow up on the ideas shared today. As we mark 80 years of the United Nations, Portugal believes that the Council’s legitimacy will continue to depend not only on the decision it adopts but also on how it conducts its work. Fully implementing

I now give the floor to the representative of Singapore.

I thank you very much, Mr. President, for convening this timely and important discussion. We commend the co-Chairs of the informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, Denmark and Pakistan, for taking up the important work of promoting the transparency and accountability of the Council. I also thank the briefers from Security Council Report and Security Council Procedure for their insightful opening remarks. We welcome the statement on working methods of the 10 elected members of the Security Council, delivered earlier by the Ambassador of Pakistanl . We share their views on this issue and would like to offer some additional perspectives. First, the Council’s working methods are fundamentally about ensuring transparency. Transparency is the foundation for a credible, effective and accountable Security Council. Transparency has a positive impact, not just on the work of the Council and the implementation of the Council’s decisions. It will also promote greater dialogue and transparency beyond the Council in the broader peace and security domain. In this regard, while we commend the increase in the number of open meetings of the Council, we continue to observe that closed consultations remain a regular practice for certain files. While we understand that closed discussions may be necessary for more candid exchanges among Council members, we think that more effort should be made to convene some of these meetings in an open format, allowing for the participation especially of concerned Member States. At a minimum, some form of summary record, at least on decision points, should be produced for closed meetings and shared with the wider membership. Secondly, we want to see a more inclusive and consultative Council. We are encouraged that Council members have made greater use of formats such as Arria Formula meetings to engage with the General Assembly. We also appreciate the regular wrap-up meetings with the wider membership by the presidency for each month and hope that these will progress towards more interactive discussions and analyses, instead of being yet another occasion to deliver prepared statements. In this connection, the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly is important for the accountability of the Council towards the wider membership. For all Member States to have a considered debate on the work of the Council, these reports should be made available to members early. Singapore strongly supports the suggestion, in paragraph 148 of note by the President S/2024/507, for interactive informal exchanges of views with the wider membership when the annual report is being drafted. We also note that paragraph 157 of presidential note 507 encourages the President of the Council, in charge of presenting the report to the General Assembly, to report to Council members on relevant suggestions and observations raised during the debate. It is important that the Council convene soon after the General Assembly debate to reflect on these suggestions and observations. We also call on all Council Presidents to submit their monthly assessments pursuant to paragraph 155 of presidential note 507, as these provide an important flow of information from the Council to the General Assembly. We note that, in 2024, just eight out of 12 Council Presidents submitted their monthly assessments. There should be more consistent and coordinated efforts from the Council in this regard. We hope that there will be progress on this particular issue because this is an issue that my delegation has raised repeatedly, both here and in the General Assembly. The permanent five have special privileges, and these must accordingly be wielded with special responsibility and special care. Our view is that the updated note on the Council’s working methods should clearly articulate the United Nations membership’s expectation for Council members to act in unity to discharge their responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We believe that Council members, in particular the permanent members, should abstain from voting if they are party to a dispute, in line with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. Singapore also supports the French-Mexican initiative and the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group on limiting the use of the veto in relation to mass atrocities (see S/2015/978). Allow me to conclude by thanking the co-Chairs for their continued efforts on this issue. At a time when we are seeking to reform the United Nations system to make it more effective and fit for purpose, it behoves the Council to undertake practical reforms to the same end. We call on all Council members, in particular the permanent members, to engage constructively in this initiative to improve the working methods of the Council.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

I thank Sierra Leone for convening this meeting and the briefers for their valuable insights. Indonesia welcomes the convening of this open debate as an opportunity for a strategic assessment of the Council’s working methods. Indonesia wishes to see a Council that is fit for the future in addressing today’s and tomorrow’s challenging environment. We believe that this is critical to safeguarding the Council’s credibility and legitimacy. Doing so will allow the Council to fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining international peace and security. Against this backdrop, allow me to highlight three points. First, improving the Council’s working methods must be part of the wider United Nations reform. The Council must strengthen its coordination with the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. At the same time, the note by the President S/2024/507 must contribute to the discussion of the Council’s working methods in the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations process. Secondly, improving the Council’s working methods is not just a technical exercise but is also a political imperative. Our efforts must be guided by the core principles of multilateralism, namely transparency, accountability and meaningful participation of the wider United Nations membership. It is also critical to deepen cooperation with regional organizations in the Council’s work, including by inviting them as briefers. Thirdly, we must refrain from politicizing procedural matters. The Council needs to review the mechanism for the appointment of Chairs of subsidiary bodies The adoption of the updated presidential note 507 (S/2024/507) is a step in the right direction towards a Council that is more effective, democratic, transparent and representative. The Council can rest assured of Indonesia’s commitment to this endeavour.

I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening us today for this open debate and the briefers for their insightful presentations. Liechtenstein aligns itself with the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s statement to be delivered by Switzerland later today. Liechtenstein has long taken an interest in the working methods of the Security Council, given that, according to the Charter of the United Nations, the Council works on behalf of the membership. We have not only a moral but also a legal interest in the Council being able to fulfil its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. The Council’s commitment to its methods of work must befit the life-and-death consequences of the products it adopts. Liechtenstein is grateful that there have been fewer vetoes so far this year than in 2024. Of course, this does not mean that the Council has been able to act in relevant situations. To cite one recent example, the Council has been unable to even put forward a text in response to apparent atrocities unfolding in Darfur, 20 years after we said never again. In this respect, we note that the eight Council members that are among the 130 signatories to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes have pledged to support timely and decisive action to prevent and end atrocity crimes. And in this summer’s resolution on the revitalization of the General Assembly (General Assembly resolution 79/327), all Council members decided to support credible, timely and decisive action by the Security Council in exercise of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. With respect to Ukraine, the Council in February watered down the calls of the membership in the General Assembly to hold Russia accountable for its aggression. To do this, the Council relied on vetoes by the Russian Federation of amendments put forward by European Member States. According to the Charter, the Russian Federation, as a party to the dispute in the situation in Ukraine, should not have voted on this resolution (resolution 2774 (2025)) or its amendments. We encourage all Council members to clarify their approach to the application of the relevant part of Charter Article 27, paragraph 3, as was agreed in the Pact for the Future. The Council should also at this point have kickstarted the process, together with the President of the General Assembly, for the selection and appointment of the Secretary-General by adopting the joint letter. While the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, the Security Council has an important role to play by making its recommendation to the General Assembly. As is reflected in this year’s General Assembly revitalization resolution, the process should be guided by the principles of transparency, accountability and inclusivity. We look forward to a productive process at this vital time for the United Nations and encourage the Council to codify its role in the process through discussions in the informal working group.

I now give the floor to the representative of Latvia.

I would first like to thank the presidency and the outstanding briefers, Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Shamala Kandiah Thompson, for their valuable insights and continued focus on strengthening the Security Council’s working methods. Latvia also expresses its appreciation to Denmark and Pakistan, the co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for leadership in advancing discussions that enhance the Council’s transparency and efficiency. Their efforts contribute to making the Council’s work more predictable and accountable, which is something that we all benefit from. We particularly commend the co-Chairs for their dedicated and constructive facilitation of the process of selecting Chairs for the subsidiary bodies in 2026. We trust that the subsequent process will allow for its smooth and timely completion so that subsidiary bodies can commence their important work without delay and continue to contribute effectively to the Council’s mandate. I would now like to address a few further points. First, we believe that transparency in the Council’s practice directly enhances its credibility. The consistent application of the provisional rules of procedure and working methods is fundamental to maintaining confidence in the Council’s ability to fulfil its mandate. In this regard, Latvia underlines the importance of a fair, predictable and consistent application of rule 37 in order to ensure that all Member States directly affected by the Council’s deliberations can participate in the discussion and contribute their valuable perspectives. At the same time, we recognize that the Council must find a fine balance between closed consultations, which facilitate efficient decision-making, and the openness of public meetings, in which transparency and trust walk hand in hand. Secondly, Latvia stresses that the effective participation of all 15 Council members must be ensured in both substance and process. The timely and fully inclusive circulation of documentation to all members makes it possible for all Council members to engage in discussions constructively. We therefore encourage all presidencies and respective penholders to circulate such documents in a transparent and timely manner, consistent with the practice outlined in note by the President S/2017/507. We further affirm our commitment to upholding these principles during our forthcoming tenure on the Council. Thirdly, the Council’s working methods should be further improved during the upcoming Secretary-General selection process. This could be achieved through closer cooperation with the General Assembly by providing regular procedural updates to the wider United Nations membership. Latvia advocates the timely and consistent distribution of all relevant communication, including documents related to the selection process itself. This approach would visibly reaffirm the Council’s commitment to Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. In conclusion, Latvia reaffirms its commitment to supporting practical improvements that make the Security Council more accountable, effective and representative. Its procedures must embody the principles of fairness and shared responsibility upon which the United Nations is built. Latvia will work with all Council members to achieve that goal.

I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

I thank you very much, President, for this open debate today. I thank both co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions for their valuable work. I would also like to thank the speakers, especially Ms. Sievers and Ms. Kandiah Thompson, for their insightful briefings. Germany has long called for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council for it to reflect the realities of the twenty-first century. Underrepresented regions and countries significantly contributing to global peace and security need stronger representation in both the permanent and the non-permanent membership categories. And the other part is, of course, working methods, which must be made fit for purpose, because the membership of the United Nations — and that is to say, our people in all countries — rightfully expect the Council to deliver solutions to the issues on its agenda. I want to make four brief points. First, on penholdership, if we look at the changing world, it is increasingly hard to understand why the lead on most files on the Council’s agenda is concentrated in the hands of only a few members. Countries from conflict regions or those who actively contribute to solving conflicts should be able to act as co-penholders more frequently. This is possible, and it has been done in the past. During its last Security Council tenure, Germany was proud to act as the first co-penholder in the Council that was not a member of the permanent five (P5). We cooperated closely with the United Kingdom, sharing the pen on Libya sanctions and Darfur. Secondly, on cooperation among elected members, the diversity of the 10 elected members of the Security Council (E10), in our view, is a valuable asset, and, if fully harnessed, it can greatly enhance the Council’s performance. When united, the E10 are more powerful, and recently the E10 have proven their ability to find solutions when the humanitarian situation in the Middle East led to gridlock among the P5. The E10 could further improve their cooperation and present their own drafts. Consultations between incoming and incumbent elected Council members could help to define common priorities and pave the way for smooth cooperation and membership transitions. Thirdly, on United Nations system coherence, the Security Council should systematically draw on the expertise of other United Nations bodies. In our experience as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and as the biggest long-term donor of the Peacebuilding Fund, the United Nations peacebuilding architecture has great potential and is extremely valuable, particularly in post-conflict settings. This is evident in many cases, and it is becoming more evident as peacekeeping missions mandated by the Council are drawing down. And we have successful examples, such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, that show how transitions benefit from close cooperation between the Council and peacebuilding institutions. In closing, let me say that transparency, efficiency and accountability are not merely nice words or elusive goals for which the Council must strive but they are essential to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council in the eyes of the peoples of the world. Accordingly, we strongly advocate for all of those values within the Council, today and beyond.

I now give the floor to the representative of Spain.

Spain considers it crucial to move ahead with enhancing the working methods of the Security Council so as to make it more representative, democratic and effective. Accordingly, we welcome the update of the latest compendium of measures and practices concerning the Council’s working methods, known as note by the President S/2024/507. I would now like to point to some ideas that could be included in today’s discussions and proposals. First, we must enable the Security Council to operate optimally, with clarity and transparency. Presidential note 507 should be applied with greater transparency. We therefore encourage Council members to apply it consistently. Likewise, the Security Council’s annual report to the General Assembly should contain an analysis of the work of the Council, including the challenges that it is facing. We support the deepening of cooperation between these two United Nations organs, and with the Peacebuilding Commission, in line with the annual resolution on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. We believe that there is scope for a fairer division of labour among Council members, particularly when it comes to the drafting of resolutions. Presidential note 507 acknowledges that members conversant with the issues on the Council’s agenda can add value as drafters of documents. It is vital to improve access to documentation and information on the Council’s work. In this context, I would like to recall that during our presidency of the Council in 2015, we incorporated the Toledo-style format into the wrap-up meetings held at the end of Security Council presidencies. These wrap-up meetings under the Toledo format did more than just summarize the Council’s work during a given month; a group of Permanent Representatives would respond to members’ questions and comments about what had been accomplished during the month. Lastly, we urge all member States to subscribe to the Franco-Mexican initiative, which advocates restraint in the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a large scale, and to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct. Among other measures, we call for both initiatives to be included into the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. In this connection, we underscore that Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations applies to all members of the Council.

I now give the floor to the representative of Estonia.

I welcome today’s timely discussion on the working methods of the Security Council. I thank the briefers for their valuable contributions Estonia aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. Estonia considers it crucial to keep updating note by the President S/2024/507 and would like to raise some key elements that we deem necessary to enhance the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the Council. First, ending and preventing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are the key responsibilities of the Security Council. Unfortunately, on too many occasions, the Council has failed to live up to its task. A large contributor to the inaction of the Security Council has been the misuse of the right of veto. Estonia insists on members refraining from voting against draft resolutions aimed at ending mass atrocities, including the crime of aggression. We also reiterate our call for the full application of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, and its provision obliging members that are party to a dispute to abstain. There is still no mention of this obligation in presidential note 507. Why not? We believe that it should be reflected there. Secondly, we call for enhanced transparency and inclusivity in the process of selecting the Secretary-General. While the resolution on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (resolution 79/327) lays out a broad timeline for the process, we really need a clear indication of when key decisions are made in the Security Council, as well as a deadline for the Council’s recommendation to the General Assembly. The Assembly should not be rushed into making the appointment. And the next Secretary-General needs sufficient time to prepare for office. We also recommend that the Council nominate more than one candidate. This would enhance the complementary roles assigned to both forums in the Charter. Thirdly, we oppose the use of the Council’s platform to promote imperialist, colonialist and malicious goals and to spread lies in support of wars of aggression. This is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and undermines the credibility of the Council, which is supposed to stand for a values-based world. Lastly, we encourage a continuation and a strengthening of the practice of inviting relevant and competent civil society briefers, including women and youth representatives, to help to enrich the Council’s discussions. An effective and accountable Security Council that is able to solve conflicts, build consensus and take action is an absolute requirement, and I trust that the Council will work to implement the improvements to its working methods presented today.

I now give the floor to the representative of Norway.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and my own country, Norway. Let me preface my remarks by thanking our two learned speakers, Loraine Sievers, and Shamala Kandiah Thompson from Security Council Report for two very insightful briefings. We all have a responsibility, as United Nations members, to examine how the Council is functioning, to check what is and is not working and to propose solutions. We therefore welcome this opportunity to engage today. We appreciate the Council’s efforts to consolidate and update note by the President S/2024/507 and we congratulate Japan for its steady hand and patient work. We welcome updates, including on mitigating risks and threats of reprisals against civil society briefers, who enrich the deliberations of this body. We note, with concern, that consensus was not reached on incorporating all agreements on working methods as per the usual The Nordic countries remain deeply concerned about the unprecedented situation last year, in which some of the most operational work of the Council remained dormant for five months owing to the inability to reach a political decision on the distribution of Chairs of subsidiary bodies. This sends the wrong signal about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council — a signal reinforced by the continual lack of agreement this year, well past the Council’s own 1 October deadline. This disproportionately affects incoming members. Elected members shoulder the burden of chairing subsidiary bodies, and a late distribution leaves them insufficient time to prepare to play a full and active role. The stopgap measures outlined in presidential note 507 can be improved to ensure continuity, for example through the greater involvement of Vice-Chairs and greater clarity on how the presidency should act as Acting Chair. But ultimately, we urge the Council to finalize an agreement without delay. The Nordic countries are looking ahead to the process of the selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General. We urge the Council, including the permanent five, to uphold the highest standards of transparency and inclusivity in this process. We look forward to the speedy issuance of a genuinely joint letter from the Presidents of the Council and the General Assembly to begin the process and demonstrate shared and equal ownership. The informal interactive dialogues in the General Assembly with candidates, with the involvement of civil society, have been instrumental to improving transparency and inclusivity and must be safeguarded. And we strongly encourage the Council to increase the transparency of its own deliberative process. White smoke, so to speak, is not enough. This is a matter of credibility. Candidates deserve to hear results from the Council directly, as do all members of the General Assembly, as it is the General Assembly that ultimately decides on the appointment of the Secretary-General. We emphasize too the importance of the considerations of geography and gender in the selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General and strongly encourage women candidates. Finally, the Nordic countries consider these as only some of the steps needed to ensure that the Council is accountable and transparent and has legitimacy and buy-in from the broader membership and the broader public to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security for another 80 years and beyond.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Philippines.

The Philippines thanks Sierra Leone for convening this open debate and Denmark and Pakistan for their leadership as co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also thank the briefers for their valuable insights. The Philippines believes that effective working methods are vital to maintaining confidence in the Security Council’s ability to discharge its responsibility under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. We wish to share five recommendations to help strengthen the Council’s efficiency, transparency, inclusivity, accountability and working culture. First, on efficiency, the Council may wish to consider establishing clear timelines for the selection of Chairs and Vice-Chairs of subsidiary bodies, with periodic updates through the Informal Working Group. Where delays may occur, outgoing Chairs could continue provisionally so as to ensure continuity. The Council Secondly, on transparency, the Philippines appreciates the Council’s regular debriefings with non-Council members after closed consultations and encourages their continuation. We also support maintaining an updated list of penholders and the early circulation of draft texts to all Council members. Thirdly, on inclusivity, we encourage a more consistent and transparent application of rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure to enable the participation of concerned Member States in its meetings and deliberations. Fourthly, on accountability, the Philippines supports the public release of the Informal Working Group’s performance indicators so that all Member States can follow the Council’s implementation of note by the President S/2017/507. Greater transparency in the use of the veto, including follow-up discussions after General Assembly consideration, would further enhance the Council’s credibility and responsiveness. Finally, on working culture, the forthcoming selection of the next Secretary- General presents a good opportunity for the Council to demonstrate even greater transparency and inclusivity, including the early publication of the timeline and the consideration of qualified women candidates. In conclusion, reforming the Council’s working methods is not only a matter of procedure but also an important means of strengthening its legitimacy and credibility. As a candidate for the 2027–2028 term, the Philippines reaffirms its strong commitment to a transparent, accountable and representative Security Council that acts decisively and consults inclusively on behalf of all Member States.

I now give the floor to the representative of Japan.

I thank you very much, Mr. President, for convening this open debate on the implementation of note by the President S/2017/507. You know how passionate Japan is about this agenda. We also appreciate the valuable inputs from today’s briefers. As prescribed in paragraph 111 of note by the President S/2024/507, the members of the Council are committed to holding an annual open debate on the Security Council’s working methods, and we welcome today’s meeting in this regard. Japan believes that the annual debate serves an important opportunity for Member States to propose ways to improve the Council’s working methods, which can be considered by the Council members in their work. Japan would also like to extend its gratitude to Denmark and Pakistan for co-chairing the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. As a country that has served as the Informal Working Group Chair four times, including last year, we are fully aware of how difficult it is to gather thoughts on developing the working methods of the Council, so let me congratulate them for their dedicated efforts. Improving the Security Council’s working methods is a matter directly linked to the Council’s mandate of maintaining international peace and security, and the Council should therefore strive to establish more efficient and transparent rules. Japan is therefore proud of its work to have developed the new presidential note 507. I am confident that the latest update of presidential note 507 fairly reflects the established practices for facilitating smooth daily business in the Council. I am delighted that Council members are now making use of the latest edition of the Handbook on the Working Methods of the Security Council, the so-called Green Based on the achievement we made last year, the Council is expected to implement presidential note 507. Unfortunately, the fact that the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies could not be decided on until June this year is proof that the agreements stipulated in the note have not been fully respected. We strongly hope that agreement on which Council members will chair the subsidiary bodies for next year will be reached as soon as possible. If and when cases arise in which the text of the note does not provide appropriate guidance, the Council should seek new arrangements. For instance, Japan understands that the Council members are discussing matters regarding the participation of non-Council members under rule 37. This rule concerns all Member States, and Japan expects discussions to continue to ensure fair and equitable participation. With the election of the Secretary-General scheduled for next year, clarifying the selection process within the Security Council has become a matter of great interest not only for Member States but for the international community. In this regard, Japan would like to emphasize the importance of further efforts by the Council to achieve a more transparent process than ever before, adhering to the resolution on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly adopted in September (General Assembly resolution 79/327). Japan would also like to strongly recommend that current and incoming Council members refer to the identical letters issued by Ambassador Koro Bessho (S/2017/93), Japan’s Permanent Representative at the time, which share lessons learned from his experience serving as President of the Council in July 2016 when the process of selecting the next Secretary-General last took place. I believe these insightful letters will serve as a good basis for discussions in the Council to further enhance the transparency, inclusivity and predictability of the process.

I now give the floor to the representative of Romania.

I also would like to thank the briefers, as they provided us not only with a historical background of the relevance of the working methods of this body but they also provided recommendations and solutions on how to overcome problems, such as the Council operating without appointing Chairs of subsidiary bodies, which is an experience that we feel has been unique. At the previous debate on the working methods, approximately 18 months ago, in March 2024 (see S/PV.9571), I emphasized three points that are still valid today: first, the need for an increased dialogue between the Security Council and the General Assembly; secondly, the relevance of Security Council field trips; and thirdly, a wide range of voices in the Council meetings that need to be heard. On the increased dialogue between the Security Council and the General Assembly, the upcoming months are critical, with the election of the new Secretary- General which is going to be high on the agenda. The first test is the joint letter that the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council will need to issue in order to initiate, formally, the process of the selection. The conversations we had in the wider membership in the context of the negotiations on the new revitalization resolution have demonstrated the importance and the increased interest for further advancing inter-institutional cooperation. The partnership between the General Assembly and the Security Council is essential on a number of topics, particularly on the maintenance of international peace and security and on the selection of the Secretary-General. I would see this relationship as a complementarity — it is not a competition, it is not something that undermines confidence — exactly the opposite. On the relevance of Council field trips, we welcome the revival of this tradition, despite financial constraints. We think that these field trips are very important. If mandates, including Security Council mandates, are to be reviewed, the members of the Security Council need first-hand information before making a decision. We very much welcome in this regard the preparations for the upcoming visit to the Middle East in the coming few weeks. The primary responsibility of the Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. However, wide interest on the part of non-Council members and other actors in attending Council meetings should be viewed as a positive sign of the authority of this body. Just as my own delegation requests, regularly, to speak in the Council under rule 37 or 39, I think it is important to allow Member States to express their views on important issues. That is why rules 37 and 39 of the provisional rules of procedure should be used to ensure such participation in the deliberations of the Council, subject to the decision of the Council members. We believe it is in the interest of Council members to allow parties of interest to present their viewpoints, especially those that are affected by unfolding events. Acting with transparency and inclusivity and ensuring the presence of a wide range of voices in the Security Council meetings is key. The work of the Security Council is of interest to all United Nations Member States and to the wider community in genera .

I now give the floor to the representative of Austria.

I would like to start by thanking Ms. Shamala Thompson and Ms. Loraine Sievers for their briefings. I emphasize that Austria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. The working methods of the United Nations Security Council might seem to be a merely technical matter. However, we believe that clear and transparent rules of procedure are inherently political. They ensure a level playing field for all members, give the Council’s proceedings legitimacy and enhance the democratic nature of the Council. This intention was also expressed in action 41 of the Pact for the Future, which Austria had the honour to facilitate with fellow intergovernmental negotiations Co-Chair Kuwait. In this action, world leaders clearly committed to “improve and democratize the working methods of the Security Council and strengthen its relationship with the General Assembly”. Let us make this commitment a reality. For Austria, the goal is clear: we need a Council that is more effective, more transparent, more inclusive and more accountable to the wider membership. Let me share only a few concrete remarks. There will be a long version of the statement uploaded later. First, the inability of the Security Council to act in the face of the most serious violations of international law and abhorrent humanitarian crises weighs heavily on the credibility and on the legitimacy of the entire United Nations — on us. Too often, the Security Council’s work is hindered by permanent members exercising their veto right. But the veto is not an absolute right, and it never was. It is constrained by the Charter of the United Nations in Article 27, paragraph 3. We therefore call on the Council to ensure the full and consistent implementation of this Article is it Concerning the effectiveness of sanctions regimes, we encourage the Council to continue to improve due process in sanctions regimes. Austria therefore welcomes the establishment of a separate informal working group on sanctions. During its most recent Security Council membership, Austria, in close cooperation with other Council members, initiated procedural improvements in the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities and the establishment of the function of the independent Ombudsperson. Austria greatly appreciates the role of the 10 elected members of the Council (E10). E10 coherence and coordination is essential for the elected members to make a real impact on the Council. Therefore, in relation to penholdership, we encourage the Council to continue the practice of co-penholderships and to distribute penholderships more evenly between permanent and elected members. Regarding the accountability of the Council to the wider membership, we highly welcome the current practice of monthly wrap-up sessions by Council presidencies, and we encourage Council members to continue this effort. As a former Co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations, Austria greatly appreciates the fact that over the past years, a clear link has been established between the intergovernmental negotiations and the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, and we encourage the Council to continue this practice.

I now give the floor to the representative of Ecuador.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. I consider it a privilege to appear once again in this Chamber when there are still representatives from countries with whom we shared a year of practice during Ecuador’s 2023–2024 term, and in the presence of two briefers who supported us a great deal during that term. Once again, it is an honour to participate in this meeting. It is also an opportunity for self-criticism and, based on that recent experience, to invite reflection on what we can do to improve the working methods and day-to-day operations of the Security Council. Sometimes it is not necessary to change the rules to improve the Council’s efficiency, but simply to stop doing things just because others are doing them, or because that is how they have been done in the past. It is good to break with established practices when they do not contribute to fulfilling the Council’s mandate. Here are two examples. First, at the beginning of each session, the President says, as you said this morning, Mr. President, “I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.” However, in recent years, making a statement has become mandatory. The Secretariat assumes that all members of the Council will speak at every public meeting, regardless of the agenda item. This is also repeated in closed meetings and even in consultations. During our two years on the Council, we also fell into this pattern, as did all other members. The result: long meetings every day, with a good number of repetitive statements and information already presented in the reports of the Secretary-General or by the briefers. In the records of past years, one can see that it was unusual for all 15 members to speak at a meeting. The meetings were shorter, which allowed members to spend less time writing Arria-formula meetings, which have already been mentioned, are another example. Originally, they cleverly allowed members to hear from those who could not be, or did not want to be, invited to a formal meeting but whose testimonies were relevant to the work of the Council. Today, unfortunately, Arria-formula meetings have lost their original purpose and have become side events that are often forgotten about within a week, do not contribute to the work of the Council and sometimes respond to the internal political motives of those convening them. As a result, before deciding to convene an Arria-formula meeting, we should ask ourselves whether it is truly necessary and useful. Moreover, not all members have the resources to organize them. Lastly, I would like to refer to the importance of disseminating the true scope of the rules and working methods. Public opinion is very critical not only of the results of the Council’s work, sometimes with reason, but also of its functioning, even though it functions precisely as it was designed to and according to the established rules. The membership of the General Assembly itself sometimes reproaches the Security Council even though it merely operates as per the Charter. Improving standards and working methods is a necessary and permanent task. It is even more difficult to reform and update structures designed for times past, and we must work to achieve that. Until then, it is up to all of us to respect, and ensure respect for, the existing rules and thereby protect the structures of multilateralism, which have cost so much to build.

I now give the floor to the representative of India.

I would like to congratulate Sierra Leone for its presidency of the Security Council and to place on record our sincere appreciation for organizing the annual open debate on working methods. India also commends Japan for its active role in updating note by the President S/2017/507 last year (S/2024/507) in its capacity as Chair of the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. I thank the briefers for their remarks. The Security Council is central in the United Nations architecture, as the principal organ that is primarily tasked with the responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As a United Nations organ whose sphere of functions covers a range of areas but whose membership is limited to only 15 members, the working methods of the Security Council are critical to its credibility, efficacy, efficiency and transparency. This gains particular salience in a world beset by multiple crises and facing numerous challenges. Despite the standing of the Security Council in the United Nations and even as we mark the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations’s establishment, its rules of procedure continue to be provisional. Though these rules remain the cornerstone guiding the day-to-day functioning of the Council, their provisional status needs to change. The status of the rules of procedure must be commensurate with the stature of the Security Council. As representative of a Member State that has served multiple times on the Council, I would like to make the following points. Secondly, there must be greater transparency in the functioning of the subsidiary organs. A case in point is the manner in which listing requests are rejected. Unlike delisting decisions, these are done in a rather obscure manner, with Member States that are not on the Council not being privy to the details. Thirdly, there must be greater coordination of the Council with other United Nations organs, particularly the General Assembly. A useful tool in this regard is the discussion of the annual Security Council report in General Assembly. However, this must not be treated as a mere procedural exercise. The report must be more than a record of the Council proceedings and meetings during the year. India reiterates its call to make the annual Security Council report analytical in nature. Fourthly, peacekeeping is an important Security Council domain. As the largest cumulative troop contributor, India stresses on the need for factoring in the inputs of the troop-contributing countries and police-contributing countries for the better implementation of peacekeeping mandates. This must be a consultative exercise. In this regard, I would like to make two specific recommendations: Christmas-tree mandates must be avoided, and peacekeeping missions must revert to having plain vanilla mandates; and any expansion of peacekeeping mandates should be matched by a proportionate increase in resources. Fifthly, the continuation of mandates that have outlived their utility for the mere narrow political interests of certain States must not be allowed. This continued existence in a resource-constrained scenario is a drain on the United Nations and Member States. At a time when Member States are striving for greater streamlining and better rationalization under the UN80 framework, I urge the Council to undertake the necessary measures on this front to bring about sunset clauses. Matters on which the Council is seized are also to be reviewed from time to time on the basis of their relevance and utility. Sixthly, India would like to emphasize that addressing historical injustices against Africa in the Security Council, given the representation from the region of 3 out of the 10 non-permanent members, is primarily through Africa’s inclusion in the permanent category. The mere expansion of the non-permanent category would not only not result in meaningful reform but would also fail to address historical injustices against Africa. Finally, working methods is one of the clusters in the intergovernmental negotiations on Council reforms. Any improvements to this cluster must not be done in a piecemeal manner. These are to be part of a comprehensive effort towards making the Council reflective of the current geopolitical realities . The overall endeavour needs to be on redesigning the eight-decade-old architecture to make the Security Council fit for purpose and equipped to meet the ongoing and future challenges and discharge its functions purposefully. For this, there must be expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, with adequate representation for underrepresented and non-represented geographies, through text-based negotiations in a time-bound manner. I reiterate that India stands fully ready to contribute to this end.

I now give the floor to the representative of the United Arab Emirates. With the high number of active conflicts around the globe, it is critical that the Security Council fulfil its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Refining the Council’s working methods can contribute to making it more effective and better able to meet the world’s expectations. In this context, I will share some reflections and proposals for the Council’s consideration. First, the Council benefits when it draws on practical proposals on its working methods from the wider United Nations membership. One such proposal is that, where relevant, there should be a live list of co-sponsors for Security Council resolutions. This would improve transparency and add significant practical value. The United Arab Emirates also reiterates its support for the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in all aspects of the Council’s work and encourages formalizing this through a presidential note. In addition, as we approach the selection process for the next Secretary-General, we emphasize the importance of timely communication between the Council and the General Assembly, and of full conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and relevant General Assembly resolutions. Secondly, the Council can bolster its effectiveness by flexibly selecting the most appropriate meeting formats and the most useful forms of participation. The Council should consider the full range of meeting formats, including those that are currently underutilized, with a view to facilitating clear-eyed deliberations and sound decisions. Based on the United Arab Emirates’ experience during our two Council presidencies, we have found that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to rule 37 participation. While guiding principles on its application could prove useful, we caution against being too prescriptive. Rather, we should aim for guidance that provides flexibility and envisages the full spectrum of scenarios. This leads me to my final point. The organization of the Council’s work requires thoughtful and prudent management. Given the steady increase in meetings, the Council should carefully consider the impact of this increase on its efficiency and effectiveness. Formal meetings can serve a purpose. However, a proliferation of meetings for their own sake should be avoided. Finally, to further increase efficiency, we encourage Council members that share common positions to consider delivering group statements, which can also serve the purpose of signalling consensus. The practice of the African members of the Security Council (A3), and currently A3 plus one, serves as a positive example in this regard. Many thoughtful proposals have been shared by today’s participants, and we trust that they will spur action to ensure a more efficient and effective Council.

I now give the floor to the representative of Luxembourg.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Benelux countries: Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. Although I will speak on behalf of three Member States, I will try to keep the remarks succinct. We align ourselves with the statement to be made by my colleague, the Permanent Representative of Switzerland, on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Group. The Benelux countries believe that improving the working methods of the Security Council is key to fostering its transparency, accountability and effectiveness. We deeply regret that the Council often finds itself in a deadlock, which prevents it from fully executing its mandate. This failure to act often has devastating consequences for civilians affected by conflict. The Benelux countries would like to make three points. First, the use of the veto and the threat of use of the veto overshadow the Council’s working methods and are at the root of the Council’s paralysis. We therefore support initiatives to limit the use of the veto, such as the proposal made by France and Mexico, and the code of conduct developed by the ACT Group. We also believe that all members of the Council must adhere to Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. We encourage adding new language in note by the President S/2024/507 on the inclusion of a dedicated section on the use of the veto in the Council’s annual report. Secondly, the significant delay in appointing Chairs and Co-Chairs of subsidiary bodies of the Council for 2025 has had a negative impact on the work of the Council, including with regard to the protection of children in armed conflict and the implementation of the sanctions regimes established by the Council, which are of interest to the entire membership. We encourage Council members to find effective ways to ensure the timely appointment of Chairs of its subsidiary bodies in the future. Thirdly, as we prepare for the selection and appointment of the next Secretary- General, in 2026, we emphasize the importance of ensuring transparency and inclusivity throughout this process. It is essential that the process be conducted in full accordance with General Assembly resolution 79/327, building on the good practices established in 2015–2016. Enhancing transparency in the Council’s deliberations and reinforcing the role of the General Assembly are key. The Benelux countries remain firmly committed to supporting the improvement of the working methods of the Security Council. It is in the interests of us all that the Council fulfil effectively its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, acting on behalf of all of us.

I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland.

I thank you, Mr. President, for this debate, and the briefers, for their, as always, inspiring thoughts. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Group, composed of 27 Member States from all regional groups, working to strengthen the Security Council’s efficiency, accountability and inclusiveness. The way in which the Security Council operates and reaches its decisions is a matter of direct relevance to the entire United Nations membership. Let me mention some of the particularly relevant aspects: the subsidiary bodies; the selection of the Secretary-General; Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations; and note by the President S/2017/507. The work of subsidiary bodies is essential for the proper functioning of the Council and for the implementation of its mandate. The ACT Group expresses its profound concern regarding the unprecedented delay in the appointment of Chairs for the subsidiary bodies for 2025. We strongly encourage the Council to appoint the Secondly, to further strengthen the transparency of the Council’s subsidiary bodies, the ACT Group also recommends that discussions not only be centred on who leads them but also on how they operate. We propose simple measures that would greatly improve institutional memory and give Member States better insight into the Council’s work. One example is publishing and regularly updating the programmes of work of subsidiary bodies, including the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa. We also encourage the Council to provide more information on the functioning and deliberations of subsidiary bodies in the monthly assessments of presidencies. These pragmatic measures would ensure institutional continuity, transparency and predictability in the Council’s work. My third point is on the process of selecting and appointing the Secretary- General of the United Nations. This is one of the most consequential decisions in our Organization and we must try to design a more reliable, transparent and inclusive process. For many decades, the ACT Group has promoted reforms that enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of the process. We refer to our letter, document S/2025/175. Some of our recommendations were included in General Assembly resolution 79/327. Building on these milestones, the ACT Group recommends the following actions. First, it recommends codifying the selection process within the Security Council, through establishing an agreed framework in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, aligning it with General Assembly resolution 79/327 and previous practice, such as the 2015–2016 process to select and appoint the Secretary-General. Secondly, to promote transparency and inclusiveness, we reiterate our call to the Security Council to enhance the transparency of its deliberations. This includes an early agreement and announcement by the Council on whether straw polls should be conducted; on a possible mechanism for how such informal voting is to be conducted and how the wider United Nations membership is to be informed about progress in the Council’s deliberations. In addition, the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council should, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 79/327, jointly maintain and regularly update a public list of candidates, including their name, nominating States, vision statement, curriculum vitae and campaign financing disclosures, published on a dedicated United Nations web page. Thirdly, the ACT Group recalls the importance of the full and consistent application of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. Ensuring respect for this provision is essential to upholding the integrity, impartiality and credibility of the Council’s decision-making. The ACT Group encourages continued Finally, the ACT Group welcomes the work on updating presidential note 507 in 2024 (S/2024/507). We call for its consistent implementation and further development, for instance with the proposals mentioned today and some further ideas that we will, in the interest of time, submit in writing. Eighty years after its creation, the Security Council’s credibility relies on its effectiveness and the trust placed in it by the wider United Nations membership. Strengthening accountability, coherence and transparency in all aspects of the Council’s work, including the appointment of subsidiary body Chairs, the operation of these bodies and the selection and appointment of the Secretary-General, will help to ensure that this trust is maintained.

I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil.

I thank Sierra Leone for convening this open debate. The continuing improvement of the Security Council’s working methods is a necessity for ensuring gains in both its effectiveness and legitimacy. There is wide-ranging recognition that there has to be more meaningful participation of elected members in the drafting of outcome documents. We encourage elected members to take on greater responsibilities, particularly with regard to penholdership, promoting a more equitable division of labour in draft resolution negotiations. With 10 members, a united elected 10 can bring better balance to the Security Council and can be a valuable force in favour of meaningful action and a call on the permanent members’ responsibility to act accordingly. Equally important is the inclusivity of the Council’s debates. The participation of civil society representatives, in particular women, in briefings to the Council should be fostered. Their perspectives enrich the understanding of complex issues and strengthen the legitimacy of decisions. Enhanced cooperation with the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) is paramount. The Council should benefit more from the critical mass produced by the PBC. The written advice issued by the PBC and the participation of the PBC Chair in briefings to the Council ensure that the Commission’s perspectives are formally integrated into the Council’s consideration of relevant matters. The Security Council should consider diverse formats of engagement with the PBC, including by the practice of formally recommending that countries on its agenda transition to the PBC on a strictly voluntary basis in order to consolidate peace and prevent a relapse into conflict. This approach should reflect the longer-term perspective that peacebuilding and sustaining peace demand. While improving working methods is vital, we must acknowledge a fundamental reality: no minor enhancement of Security Council procedures can sufficiently address the severe lack of efficacy, legitimacy and representativeness present in the Council’s current composition. Its enlargement in both categories of membership is urgently needed. The Council cannot be fully legitimate and effective as long as the global South remains sidelined and whole regions, such as Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa, are not represented in the permanent category. Any debate on working methods must be underpinned by the overarching framework of comprehensive reform, which includes this expansion. Improvements in working methods and reform are not separate objectives but complementary elements of a single vision. Ultimately, to fulfil its mandate to maintain international peace and security, this body must work in an effective, transparent and responsible manner, with improved working methods and expanded membership, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the interests of all Member States.

At the outset, allow me to express our appreciation to the presidency of Sierra Leone for convening today’s significant discussion. Note by the President S/2017/507 represents an important step towards enhancing the efficiency, transparency and inclusiveness of the work of the Security Council — the principal body entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security. The Kyrgyz Republic, firmly committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, fully supports these objectives and welcomes the progress achieved in their implementation. However, we would like to highlight the following points. First, we positively note the improvements in the Council’s planning practices. The introduction of structured monthly programmes, timely notification of emergency meetings and wrap-up briefings has contributed to a better balance between open and closed formats. This has enabled non-members of the Council, including small and developing States, to participate more actively in dialogue and decision-making processes. Secondly, the mechanism of penholdership has created new opportunities for the greater involvement of elected members. To strengthen the voice of small and developing countries, it would be useful to encourage rotation among penholders, for instance, by limiting consecutive terms and promoting co-penholdership among the representatives of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Drawing on its own experience in peacekeeping and regional cooperation, Kyrgyzstan stands ready to contribute to such initiatives, particularly in areas related to border security and counter-terrorism. Thirdly, we welcome the progress achieved in enhancing engagement with non-members through Arria-formula meetings and Council missions. At the same time, further efforts are needed to ensure the full implementation of the presidential note 507, notably through timely access to documents for incoming members and the greater use of multilingualism so that all voices are heard equally. In this regard, Kyrgyzstan would like to propose an additional measure: the introduction of digital tools for dialogue with non-members. Referring to Sections III and IX of presidential note 507, we suggest the creation of an online platform that would allow non-members and civil society representatives to submit ideas and feedback with built-in multilingual features, as highlighted in Section XIV (S/2024/507). We believe that this would reduce bureaucratic barriers and facilitate the participation of small and developing countries, such as Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan believes that the consistent implementation of presidential note 507, complemented by innovative digital engagement, will strengthen confidence in the Council and enhance its ability to respond effectively to global challenges. Kyrgyzstan reaffirms its readiness to contribute constructively to the further improvement of the Council’s working methods. Only through collective efforts and genuine partnership, including through modern and inclusive communication tools, can we ensure peace and stability for all nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of El Salvador.

Allow me to begin by expressing El Salvador’s thanks to the presidency of Sierra Leone for convening this debate. We also thank Denmark and Pakistan in their capacity as co-Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions for their constant work to guide this very necessary conversation. In this regard, the impact of the use of the veto cannot be ignored. For El Salvador, the veto continues to be one of the greatest obstacles to the Council’s ability to take timely decisions in situations that require immediate action. In recent months, we have seen how necessary resolutions have not been adopted because of its use and how the mere threat of its use paralyses measures that have already been agreed upon by this same organ. These practices erode collective confidence in the institution and also weaken the public perception of the United Nations’ ability to respond to atrocity crimes or serious violations. We therefore reiterate our call for maximum restraint, particularly with regard to situations involving the prevention or halting of mass atrocities, in accordance with the Franco-Mexican initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct. We also consider it essential that vetoes and their implications be adequately reflected in the Council’s annual report, which will contribute to greater transparency but also accountability before the General Assembly. In this regard, we wish to emphasize the importance of strengthening interaction between the two organs. The General Assembly, as everyone knows, is the most inclusive and representative forum of the Organization. It is the voice of the 193 Member States and, therefore, it must feed more systematically into the deliberations of the Council. This means enabling more frequent opportunities for feedback but also improving the flow of information to the entire membership and ensuring that States that are not members of the Council have broad, timely and continuous access to background documents and the Council’s institutional memory. A more open Council is also a more legitimate Council. For this reason, El Salvador considers it necessary to strengthen the inclusion of Member States in deliberations, especially when dealing with issues that directly affect their regions or interests. Public discussions should allow for real and substantive participation, and the management of documentation submitted by States to the Council should also be clearer, more accessible and more predictable. With regard to the process for selecting and appointing the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, we believe that transparency and the full participation of all Members must be guaranteed. Closer coordination between the Security Council and the General Assembly is essential to ensure that processes are open, inclusive and predictable. We trust that this issue can be addressed more systematically in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters. We would also like to highlight the importance of strengthening the relationship between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. This is because the Commission provides strategic analysis and field experience, as well as a long- term perspective that is essential to ensuring that mandates are more coherent, but also more sustainable. On a related note, El Salvador supports the need to move towards clearer, more inclusive and more predictable procedures for penholders and co-penholders. This Finally, we wish to emphasize that the full, equal and meaningful participation of women is a key priority for El Salvador. We urge the Council to mainstream the women and peace and security agenda into its working methods, and we encourage those who report to this organ to systematically incorporate data and analysis on the differentiated impact of conflict on women and girls. We also consider it necessary to update the Council’s basic documents to reflect current realities and standards regarding women’s participation. We reiterate our commitment to a more representative, transparent and effective Security Council, but to achieve this it is essential to strengthen and update its working methods, not as a purely technical exercise, but as a political and ethical imperative in order to respond adequately to the crises that millions of people around the world are facing. We, El Salvador, will continue to participate constructively and proactively in this work, convinced that a Council that functions better is a Council that also serves the entire international community better.

I now give the floor to the representative of Costa Rica.

The procedural architecture of the Security Council is crucial to its ability to respond to threats to international peace and security, and also to build and renew the confidence that Member States place in this organ . However, the current deliberative structures have specific shortcomings that need to be corrected. In this regard, allow me to highlight four points. First, regarding informal plenary consultations, the revised versions of note by the President S/2017/507 have formalized procedures for public and briefing meetings. However, the Council’s informal consultations remain shrouded in secrecy and accountability is eroded by the lack of information on the outcomes of these deliberations. Secondly, the traditional model of distributing penholdership has concentrated responsibility for drafting among permanent members. However, when elected members exercise co-penholdership functions from the initial stage of negotiations, draft resolutions reflect broader balance and generate greater support during implementation. Current practice treats this modality as an exception. For Costa Rica, it should become standard procedure for resolutions on regional situations in which elected members contribute direct contextual knowledge. Thirdly, Costa Rica would like to refer to decisions on peacekeeping operations. The current procedure calls on troop- and police-contributing countries, after the Council has defined the parameters of the mandate, and although the Arria formula allows for early consultations, it is not binding. Furthermore, the public meeting formats set out in rule 31 of the provisional rules of procedure come too late in the decision-making process. To overcome these obstacles, Costa Rica believes that we clearly need prior, structured consultations with troop-contributing countries before approving mandates that affect the safety of their personnel and the operational viability of the missions themselves. Fourthly, the Council must activate the mechanisms of Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations on investigating disputes before they escalate. Therefore, informal meetings on prevention require systematic follow-up with defined decision Working methods constitute the institutional infrastructure of multilateralism. Costa Rica will contribute to this procedural reform with the conviction that a more transparent, inclusive and preventive Council is the only way to fulfil the mandate conferred on us by the Charter.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. I intend, with the concurrence of members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until this afternoon, shortly after 3 p.m., following the adjournment of the 10044th meeting.