S/PV.10096 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nigeria, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor- Leste, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Viet Nam 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: His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission; and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, founding President of the African Institute of International Law. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I also invite His Excellency Mr. Stavros Lambrinidis, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, to participate in this meeting. 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/2026/28, which contains a letter dated 13 January 2026 from the Permanent Representative of Somalia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration. I warmly welcome the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. António Guterres, and give him the floor.

I congratulate Somalia on its presidency of the Security Council, and I also welcome my fellow briefers: His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission; and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, former President of the International Court of Justice and founding President of the African Institute of International Law. The rule of law is a cornerstone of global peace and security, the key to friendly relations among the countries and regions of the world and the beating heart of the Charter of the United Nations. For 80 years, it has helped humanity avoid a third world war and eased the human toll in countless smaller conflicts. The Charter, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core human rights treaties — the Geneva Conventions, the Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970 and the declaration on the rule of law of 2012 — have all contributed to a collective security system that is robust and resilient, that prohibits the threat and use of force and binds all States, large and small, to the same rules and that respects the principles of the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of States. For smaller and less powerful countries and those suffering from historical inequities and the damaging legacies of colonial rule, international law is a lifeline promising equal treatment, sovereignty, dignity and justice. And for powerful countries, it is a guardrail defining what is acceptable, and what is not, in times of disagreement, division and outright conflict. The founders of the Organization understood that global problems can only be solved by wielding not the weapons of war but instead the tools of diplomacy, supported by a system based on international law; by dialogue, not the zero-sum rhetoric of division; and by collaboration, not geopolitical competition. In 2024, Member States adopted the Pact for the Future, which included the commitment to act in accordance with international law and fulfil obligations in good faith. But words are not being matched with action. Around the world, the rule of law is replaced by the law of the jungle. We see flagrant violations of international law and brazen disregard for the United Nations Charter. From Gaza to Ukraine and around the world, the rule of law is being treated as an à la carte menu. We see States flouting the rule of law with impunity through the illegal use of force, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, human rights violations and abuses, the illegal development of nuclear weapons, unconstitutional changes of Government and the denial of life- saving humanitarian aid. These violations set dangerous precedents, encouraging other countries to do what they want instead of what they are required to do under international law. They breed mistrust and division among nations, and they undermine people’s faith in our ability to find solutions together. Eight decades after this multilateral system was created, we need to get back on track, and the Council must lead the way. The rule of law is foundational to the United Nations and our mission of peace. I am determined to keep driving our relentless push for just and sustained peace — peace firmly anchored in international law and peace that endures because it tackles the root causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Too many crises today persist in limbo — fragile ceasefires, stalled processes or agreements that evaporate the moment the ink dries. The rule of law is also foundational to our work here in the Chamber. In an era crowded with initiatives, the Security Council stands alone in its Charter-mandated authority to act on behalf of all Member States on questions of peace and security. The Council alone adopts decisions that are binding on all. No other body or ad hoc coalition can legally require all Member States to comply with decisions on peace and security. Only the Council can authorize the use of force under international law, as set out in the Charter. Its responsibility is singular; its obligation is universal. And that is why reform is essential; that is why we must act without delay to enhance the representation and effectiveness of the Council. Looking ahead to questions of the rule of law, I see three areas where Member States and the Council can take action. First, countries must keep their promises. The purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter are not optional. All countries have an obligation to uphold them, to settle disputes peacefully, to safeguard the human rights and dignity of all people, to act in conformity with international law and to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the principles of the self-determination of peoples and the sovereign equality of Member States. Our collective security system requires trust, and the best way to reinforce trust is for all countries to meet their commitments under international law. Secondly, I urge Member States to make full use of the dispute settlement mechanisms spelled out in the Charter to prevent conflicts from starting in the first place. As the Council knows, the best - and often the only - pathway to peace depends on the hard work of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and other means set out in Article 33 of the Charter. Preventing conflicts also means building strong partnerships with regional organizations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter. Resolution 2719 (2023) sets a good example by establishing a framework for the predictable financing of African Union-led peace support operations authorized by the Security Council through assessed contributions. And as the Pact for the Future, my New Vision for the Rule of Law and the New Agenda for Peace remind us, preventing conflicts also means investing in development and institutions that people can trust. Poverty, hunger, inequality, corruption, injustice and exclusion erode people’s hopes for the future, drive communities further apart and send shockwaves of unrest, violence and even conflict across countries and regions. Sustainable development is possible only by adhering to the rule of law, including the requirement to safeguard the rights and dignity of all people at all times. (spoke in French) Thirdly, we must continue to promote the use of fair and independent judicial proceedings. It is encouraging to note a growing use of international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice — the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. At a time when the Court is marking its eightieth anniversary, I would like to repeat my appeal to all Member States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court without reservations and to abide by, and give full effect to, its binding decisions. It is also time to ensure accountability and to end impunity. The International Criminal Court, the central institution of the international criminal justice regime, must discharge its remit independently. There cannot be lasting peace or just peace without accountability. The rule of law must prevail. For eight decades, the rule of law has been the great counterweight in international relations. It is time that all countries renewed their commitment to abiding fully by international law and lived up to the promises and obligations set forth in the United Nations Charter. Members of the Council bear a particular responsibility and must lead by example. Through my good offices and thanks to the enduring efforts of United Nations mediators, I stand ready to support the endeavours of the Council to advance the rule of law and build a more stable and more secure world for all.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Youssouf.

I wish to begin by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to His Excellency Mr. Osman, President of the Security Council for the month of January 2026, for convening this high-level debate. I also commend Somalia’s leadership at the helm of the Council. Somalia’s trajectory from conflict to the presidency of this organ is a powerful symbol of resilience and of the hope embodied by a rules-based international order. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. António Guterres, for his briefing and his leadership. We meet at a decisive juncture for multilateralism. The international system that has provided relative stability for nearly eight decades is now weakened. Armed conflict is proliferating, unilateral action is a fact of life, and trust in international institutions is eroding. In the face of that, Africa’s position is clear and consistent: we remain deeply committed to multilateralism. We know that no State, irrespective of its might, is capable of tackling the current challenges singlehandedly. Terrorism, climate change, pandemics, poverty and insecurity are threats that know no borders. They require collective responses grounded in international law and genuine cooperation. It is on the basis of that concrete experience that Africa approaches the question of the international rule of law. For our continent, it is not an abstract concept. The rule of law is the foundation of sovereignty, dignity, stability and sustainable development. The Constitutive Act of the African Union enshrines democratic governance, human rights, the rule of law and good governance as binding principles. It also affirms territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders and peaceful coexistence in an increasingly unstable world. These principles define Africa’s identity and guide our collective action. Africa’s commitment to peace is not limited to principles. It is translated into action. Resolution 2719 (2023) marked a historic step forward in the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union, by recognizing the essential role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. African troop-contributing countries, notably in Somalia, continue to make considerable sacrifices. We honour the memory of those who have lost their lives in the service of peace. And we reaffirm Africa’s determination to assume greater responsibility for its own security, in partnership with the international community. This commitment is supported by concrete efforts, including through the African Union Peace Fund. Furthermore, African States increasingly resort to legal mechanisms to settle their disputes peacefully, notably before the International Court of Justice and regional judicial bodies. This reflects a deep conviction that law must prevail over force. But any discussion on the international rule of law must also acknowledge a concerning reality: Africa remains excluded from permanent representation in the Council. Eighty years after the creation of the United Nations, a continent of 1.4 billion people and 55 member States still does not have a permanent voice in the decisions that shape its future. This is not only an injustice for Africa but also a problem of credibility and effectiveness for the Security Council itself. Africa’s position is clear and united, as expressed in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration: two permanent seats with all prerogatives, including the right of veto, and five non-permanent seats. This is not about privileges, but about equity and historical correction. We therefore call for strengthened cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in particular the African Union, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as for partnerships based on mutual respect, complementarity and the sharing of responsibilities. Revitalizing multilateralism requires more than statements; it demands good-faith respect for international obligations, the peaceful settlement of disputes, more equitable global governance and the political courage to reform institutions that no longer reflect current realities. Africa is ready to play its full part. Guided by Agenda 2063 and by the United Nations Charter, it extends its hand to all who aspire to a more just, peaceful and inclusive international order. For Africa, the rule of law is neither optional, selective or negotiable. It is the condition for peace. Let us ensure that future generations inherit not a weakened system, but a renewed multilateralism — stronger, more just and worthy of their trust.

I thank Mr. Youssouf for his briefing. I now give the floor to Judge Yusuf. Judge Yusuf: It is a great pleasure for me to see Somalia presiding over the Security Council after more than half a century. My warmest congratulations to you, Mr. President, and to the entire delegation of Somalia on its election to the Council and its assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. A debate on the rule of law is both timely and topical. We live at a time of many threats to the international legal order. We therefore have to remind ourselves of the crucial role of the rule of law —both at the domestic and international levels — for peace and security. Every society needs to determine how the relations among its members are to be governed. All societies establish rules and principles for that purpose. This applies also to the international society. At the international level, available options for States certainly include the rule of law, but also the legitimization of the use of war as a means of foreign policy, including as a means to settle disputes or enforce legal rights. This was indeed the case before the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations. It led to two destructive and catastrophic world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, not to mention the numerous wars in Europe in the nineteenth century and the colonial wars in Africa and Asia, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people. In 1945, through the Charter, the founders of the United Nations chose the rule of law and rejected the rule of force, which had hitherto prevailed. This choice did not come from nowhere and was not a sudden decision. It was a result of the evolution of human civilization. It was a result of the realization that the old system that had made war permissible to right wrongs was not only brutal but fundamentally unjust. The international rule of law is therefore a recent human achievement and represents a model of an international order based on the rules of international law, as opposed to a model governed by the claims of power of a few States over the others. The old expression “might is right” has never helped humanity to live together in peace and harmony. The emergence of an international rule of law in the second half of the twentieth century and the underlying respect for the principles and rules of the United Nations Charter acted in the past 80 years — maybe not all the time, but very often —as a bulwark against widespread wars and violence in the world. The sovereign equality of States, equal rights and the self-determination of peoples, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of other States and the peaceful settlement of disputes are the fundamental principles and rules, to mention just a few, that brought us all peace and stability. They also served as an engine of freedom and emancipation for the peoples of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean from colonial rule and enabled them to consolidate their independence. They served equally as an engine of economic development and prosperity in many parts of the world, which, for the first time in their history, enjoyed uninterrupted peace and stability for almost a century. The embodiment of the rule of law in the United Nations Charter went hand in hand with a significant increase not only in the rules applicable to relations between States, but also in those applicable to individuals and in those meant to facilitate the lives of people when crossing borders, for whatever reason, or communicating with others outside their countries or continents. That increase was due to the conclusion of international agreements in a wide range of fields, from aviation to telecommunications, from labour standards to trade and investment, from human rights to humanitarian law and all the way to environmental law, global warming and the protection of biological diversity. It also gave rise to thousands of treaties establishing cooperation among States at both the bilateral and multilateral levels. The international rule of law, as compared to the domestic rule of law, we have to recognize, is still in its adolescence. Eighty years is a very short period in the history of humanity. As we all know, adolescence is a transitional period marked by social change and challenges. We cannot therefore expect the rule of law among nations to display maturity and solidity at all times. It will experience challenges as it grows. It will occasionally suffer shortcomings. It will be affected by strong headwinds to its progress. This happens to be the case today. However, there is no reason for despair. The vitality of a legal order is for the long haul. There will always be periods of turbulence, but the dangers lurking behind such turbulence should convince States to stay the course and uphold the rule of law, because the alternative is much less desirable. We need to recall that the binding character of the large majority of rules of international law rests upon the consent of States. The obligations assumed by States through international agreements are not incompatible with State sovereignty. The conclusion of any treaty by which a State undertakes to perform or refrain from performing a particular act is itself an attribute of State sovereignty. It is therefore in the exercise of their sovereignty that States establish the rules governing their relations with other States. They should therefore respect them. A world without rules or legal guardrails is not in the interest of any State, small or big, weak or powerful. Lawlessness and chaos do not benefit any national security or development, nor does arbitrariness in relations with other States. The advantages of stability and predictability offered by the web of international legal rules established in the post-war period outweigh any possible constraints that they impose on States. Without an international rule of law, arbitrariness would increase, predictability would diminish and certainty would disappear. Hopefully, cooperation and coordination through the United Nations and its organs will help us all to avoid such a situation.

I thank Judge Yusuf for his briefing. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Somalia. It is a great honour and privilege for Somalia to preside over the high-level open debate at the Security Council today. This honour is even more meaningful given that it is the first time Somalia has held the Council’s presidency since January 1972. I extend my gratitude to Their Excellencies, the Secretary-General, Mr.António Guterres: the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf; and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf for their briefings. Their insights and commitments to upholding the principles of the Charter of the United Nations are deeply valued and are the basis for the timely deliberations today. We meet at a significant milestone: the Charter’s eightieth anniversary. This is a time not just for commemoration but for honest reflection. We must ask ourselves: are we living up to the vision that shaped this institution? Are we upholding the principles intended to promote peace, justice and human dignity for all? I think there is a debate to be had here. In Somalia, we say: “if what happened yesterday is not examined today, there is no progress for tomorrow”. Somalia is a proud nation of poets. We turn to our proverbs in moments of reflection. This reminds us that progress is intentional and that only by looking honestly at our past can we correct course and build a better future. For my country and the majority of Member States, the rule of law among nations is not an abstraction. It safeguards sovereignty, anchors justice and preserves dignity. Yet today, in too many places, the rule of law is under pressure from conflict and from weak global adherence to international agreements. This is a legal and diplomatic race to the bottom, which risks undermining all international achievements in development. The Charter of the United Nations clearly states: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. This noble guiding ambition, born out of the destruction of two world wars, must continue to guide us towards peace and prosperity in these uncertain and turbulent times. To achieve the aspirations of the Charter of the United Nations, we must strengthen our resolve in four critical areas. The first is the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Charter is clear: States must resolve their differences by peaceful means. Peace is more than the absence of war. It demands lasting solutions built on trust in legal institutions. Across the world, we have witnessed nations opting for courts, not arms, to resolve disputes. Every legal pathway must be utilized to prevent conflicts and injustices from escalating. The second is respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. When borders are unilaterally altered through the use of force, the very architecture of the international legal order is threatened. This undermines the collective sovereignty and security of all States. This principle, enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter and further affirmed in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, finds its most profound regional expression in the Constitutive Act of the African Union. In particular, for post-colonial States, it is a fundamental legal reality. We maintain that global stability and the prevention of conflict depend entirely upon the rigorous and consistent application of this principle, without exception or selective interpretation. Thirdly, rights are equal for all peoples. The sovereign equality of States and the equal rights of all peoples are the twin pillars upon which the international system is built. As affirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all human beings possess an inherent dignity that admits no hierarchy, distinction or exception. The rule of law is fundamentally incompatible with rhetoric that demeans entire populations or dismisses voices based on creed, religion or national origin. Such conduct constitutes a direct assault on the Charter’s commitment to international cooperation. The rule of law and fundamental human rights are indivisible and mutually reinforcing. When the dignity of one people is diminished through contempt or systemic exclusion, the legal framework protecting us all is fractured. True international order cannot exist where equality is treated as a conditional privilege rather than an absolute right. Fourthly, the rule of law is the cornerstone of multilateralism. The challenges we face today transcend borders. They demand collective action anchored in trust and legal obligation. Treaties not honoured erode that trust. We must support the established international legal systems, which help resolve disputes and restore faith in the global order. The Charter provides the international legal architecture to reinforce the rule of law. Yet we stand at a crossroads: one path leads to a world in which power eclipses principles and justice is reserved for the few; on another path lies the promise of our Charter — a world governed by law, where sovereignty is protected and justice is within reach of all. As we look forward to the next 80 years, it is crucial to recommit to learning from yesterday and acting with purpose today, building a world where multilateralism is strengthened, not weakened, and territorial integrity is respected not only in principle but also in practice. The Security Council must do more than bear witness. We must act as stewards of the rule of law and defenders of multilateralism. What is needed now is the will to apply these principles consistently and without double standards. Somalia’s return to this important Council reflects a renewed commitment to the principles that anchor this Chamber: dialogue over division, law over force and cooperation over conflict. For the betterment of all peoples and the advancement of the international order, and for generations yet to come, we must breathe renewed life into the Charter. We must ensure that we all match our words with deeds and recommit ourselves, together, to the rule of law among nations. This is the real road to global peace, security and economic prosperity for all nations. I resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

At the outset, I am pleased to welcome the presidency of the sisterly Federal Republic of Somalia at today’s open debate. I also wish to thank Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, and Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, founding President of the African Institute of International Law, for their briefings and valuable observations, which have contributed to enriching this important discussion. The international community is currently going through a phase characterized by increasing security challenges, escalating armed conflicts and declining trust in multilateral mechanisms, against the backdrop of an international system witnessing unprecedented tests that threaten the foundations of global stability and peace. As the international community commemorates the eightieth anniversary of the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, this occasion is not merely symbolic but constitutes a renewed opportunity to emphasize the pivotal role of the rule of law as the unifying framework and guarantor of regulating relations between States and consolidating the principles of justice, peace and human coexistence. The Kingdom of Bahrain affirms that the rule of law at the national and international levels constitutes an essential pillar for the maintenance of international peace and security, as stipulated in the Charter regarding respect for the principles of sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of States and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The fulfilment of international obligations in good faith remains the real guarantee for preventing conflicts and enhancing global stability. Indeed, confronting emerging threats that may undermine the rule of law requires the adoption of preventive and cooperative strategies at the regional and international levels, based on preventive diplomacy, capacity-building in legal and institutional areas and the enhancement of the role of regional organizations, in a way that ensures that conflicts are addressed in their early stages and respects the specificities of the States concerned. The Kingdom of Bahrain shares with the members of the Security Council the primary responsibility for maintaining the rule of law in a consistent and neutral manner, in accordance with the Charter. My country supports making greater use of the means of the peaceful settlement of disputes, including mediation, good offices and judicial mechanisms. In this context, the Kingdom of Bahrain stresses the importance of utilizing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, especially those contained in Chapter VI, given the effective legal tools they provide for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prevention of the escalation of conflicts between States. The Kingdom also encourages the utilization of the legal frameworks of regional organizations and the enhancement of integration and constructive coordination between them and the United Nations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, so as to support international efforts to maintain international peace and security. In conclusion, my country believes that the rule of law is indivisible and cannot be applied selectively; it must be respected and applied to all, without exception. The Kingdom remains committed to constructive work within the Council and with all partners to enhance the rule of law and support international peace and security on the basis of justice, peace and international cooperation.

I wish to congratulate Somalia on its successful presidency this month and on organizing this important debate. We see this as a continuation of a series of high-level debates on the United Nations, multilateralism and international law over the past year, including in the Security Council. I would also like to thank Secretary-General António Guterres, Chairperson of the African Union Commission Mahmoud Ali Youssouf and founding President of the African Institute of International Law, Judge Yusuf, for their insightful remarks. The Secretary-General described the rule of law as the beating heart of the Charter of the United Nations, and Judge Yusuf urged fully respecting and strengthening it. It is therefore obvious that this debate is timely. The erosion of respect for international law is increasingly translating into conflict, humanitarian crises and weakened multilateral cooperation. Reaffirming the international rule of law is therefore not an abstract legal exercise. It is a prerequisite for peace, justice and collective security. The purpose of international law is to inject stability into the international system by making inter-State conduct predictable and subject to agreed rules and boundaries. When that function is compromised, international law risks losing its meaning, and compliance can become optional. A stable, peaceful and productive international order can endure only if the rule of law is applied equitably, consistently, boldly and without discrimination. Yet today, respect for international law is being tested as rarely before. The selective application of legal norms, the erosion of treaty obligations and unilateral actions have weakened trust among States and strained the multilateral system anchored in the United Nations Charter. When law yields to power or expediency, instability deepens, disputes entrench further and peaceful coexistence is jeopardized. The core principles of the Charter — sovereign equality, non-interference, political independence and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the threat or use of force, and self-determination — are increasingly being challenged. Attempts to normalize unilateral actions outside the Charter undermine collective security and weaken the credibility of multilateral institutions. Pakistan itself has experienced such violations. In May 2025, India carried out an unprovoked military aggression in breach of international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty. Acting in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, Pakistan exercised its inherent right of self-defence in a responsible, restrained and proportionate manner. Our response established that there can be no “new normal” based on coercion or impunity. Respect for international law remains the only legitimate norm governing inter-State conduct. That conflict also reminded us that the root cause of instability in South Asia remains India’s illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, in gross violation of Security Council resolutions. The continued denial of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people has grave human rights consequences and imperils durable peace in the region. India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is another blatant breach of international obligations, threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions and endangering peace and security. Pakistan rejects the weaponization of water and critical natural resources. Treaty compliance is a cornerstone of the international legal order. As a country with unwavering faith in international law and multilateralism, Pakistan is committed to the pacific settlement of disputes. This was evident when, within weeks of defeating the military aggression, Pakistan led the unanimous adoption of resolution 2788 (2025), on the peaceful settlement of disputes, by the Council in July 2025, reaffirming the Council’s collective commitment to dialogue, mediation, judicial settlement and other peaceful means as the first recourse in resolving disputes. While some in the West are saying it now, we know that, owing to double standards and a lack of full compliance, the international system has often failed and fallen short of fully benefiting many countries, in particular in the global South. Yet, the developing nations have continued to place their faith in the United Nations Charter and in an equitable and just international order. Their aspirations for peace, security and development must remain central to the evolution of multilateralism and the reform of the United Nations, a reform towards equality, democracy and accountability, away from unbridled power and entitlement, a reform for all, and privilege for none. Reinvigorating the rule of law is essential to restoring that confidence. Not everything is pessimistic, as Judge Yusuf also pointed out. Despite geopolitical tensions, the international legal framework remains resilient. The entry into force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the International Law Commission’s work on sea- level rise demonstrate the capacity to respond to emerging challenges. We also welcome the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on Palestine and climate change. These opinions must be respected and applied universally, because selective acceptance would undermine the authority of the Court and confidence in international adjudication. As the Secretary-General also noted, the rule of law is foundational to our work in the Council. This requires full compliance with Security Council resolutions on all items on its agenda. The situation in Palestine starkly illustrates the consequences of selective adherence to international law. The continued denial of the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination, persistent violations of international humanitarian law and disregard for relevant United Nations resolutions erode the credibility of the international system and international legitimacy. A just and lasting peace can only be achieved through full respect for international law and equal application of legal principles to all. The corpus of international law stems, among other sources, from the resolutions of the Council. It is imperative that Member States fulfil their obligation under Article 25 of the Charter to implement the Council’s decisions. To strengthen compliance and prevent selective application of international law, we would like to make the following suggestions. First, the Security Council should devise effective mechanisms to systematically monitor the implementation of its own resolutions and to take action in cases of persistent non-compliance. Secondly, the Council should engage the International Court of Justice more systematically when legal disputes on the Council’s agenda risk undermining the implementation of its decisions, in particular in situations of prolonged political deadlock. Thirdly, the Council should institutionalize regular legal briefings by the Office of Legal Affairs on situations on its agenda, including on the legal implications of non-compliance with Council resolutions and international treaties, to ensure that the Council’s deliberations and decisions remain firmly grounded in international law. Finally, United Nations organs and bodies should have easier and more frequent recourse to the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on specific disputes and on the fulfilment of the legal obligations of Member States and international organizations. The international rule of law cannot be sustained by deliberations alone. It requires consistent conduct and credible accountability. If multilateralism is to endure, law must prevail over force, principles over expediency and justice over impunity. Pakistan remains committed to a United Nations Charter-inspired, rules- based international order in which disputes are resolved peacefully, obligations are honoured and the United Nations serves as a true guarantor of peace, justice and dignity for all.

Let me also thank the Secretary-General, Chairperson of the African Union Commission Ali Youssouf and Judge Yusuf for their insightful briefings. We commend Somalia for convening this timely debate today. Around this table, we must recall that the rule of law is not an abstract principle. For civilians in the Sudan, it is the promise that tomorrow will be safer than today. For families in Haiti, it means safety from gangs and a justice system that functions. For communities in Ukraine — and indeed around the globe — it is the assurance that sovereignty matters. Put simply, it is the promise of the Charter of the United Nations in action that relations between nations are built on the law and mutual respect for the law. Today however, that promise, upon which so many rely and which all of us have committed to uphold, is under unprecedented threat. Urgent action is needed to reverse course and to promote and defend the rule of law. There are many ways to put this principle into practice. However, the first is as fundamental as it is simple. It is upholding the principles enshrined in the Charter — principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States without exception. It is resolving disputes peacefully. It is ending, immediately, the illegal use or threat of use of force. These aspects are foundational, and they are non- negotiable. The rule of law is also built on strong, independent legal institutions. Later this year, we will mark the eightieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice. This offers an opportunity not only for celebration but also for recommitment to the Court’s central role in upholding international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We, the Member States, must fulfil our obligation under Article 33 of the Charter and seek solutions to any dispute by peaceful means, and we encourage all Member States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Strong, independent criminal courts, at both the national and international levels, are also essential. Since the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Denmark’s support for it and the Rome Statute has been and continues to be unwavering. As part of our commitment to the ICC, we are pleased to announce the candidacy of Danish High Court Judge Mette Lyster Knudsen for the upcoming ICC judicial election in December 2026. The rule of law is the backbone of peaceful, just and inclusive societies. It is vital to ensuring both immediate security and the necessary stability for peacebuilding to take root. It is fundamental to achieving economic and social progress and development and to ensuring the protection of human rights. Denmark believes that the Council must therefore continue to provide strong rule of law mandates in peace operations. Such mandates support and build national institutions and capacities, reduce the risk of conflicts re-emerging and enable effective transition and exit strategies. At a time of increased financial pressure, they are cost-effective investments in peace. However, our tools will remain ineffective and our resolutions empty words on a page if we, members of the Security Council, do not muster the political will to use and implement them. Too often, that will is blocked by the misuse of the veto. Denmark’s view is clear: it is time to reform the Security Council to represent the world of this century. It is time to restrict the use of the veto and take seriously initiatives to this end. Above all, it is time to break the paralysis and deadlock that too often hinders our work. In closing, the credibility of the Council and of the multilateral system as a whole rests not solely on our decisions but also on the principles we defend. When we place the rule of law at the centre of our work, we reaffirm that peace is built on justice and accountability. We remind the countless civilians trapped in conflict that their rights matter, that they matter and that the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter continue to guide us. Denmark’s support for these principles was resolute 80 years ago, and it remains so today. It will also remain so in the future.

I welcome Somalia’s initiative to convene this open debate and thank Secretary-General António Guterres, Chairperson of the African Union Commission Mahmoud Ali Youssouf and Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf for their briefings. Over the past 80 years, countries have reflected deeply on the two world wars and established together the international system with the United Nations at its core, the international order based on international law and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Today, we note with concern that the dregs of unilateralism are resurfacing, power politics are rearing their head, bullying practices are rampant and the international rule of law is under serious strain. More than at any time in the past, we need to strengthen unity and cooperation, revitalize the international rule of law and strive to realize the noble vision of peace, security, prosperity and progress. First, we must resolutely defend the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter is the fundamental guide for handling international relations and an important cornerstone of the stability of the international order. The fact that the world today faces so many problems does not mean that the Charter is outdated, but rather that its purposes and principles have not been effectively implemented. Countries must treat each other as equals, respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, persist in resolving disputes by peaceful means, oppose the threat or use of force in international relations and abide by the “golden rule” of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. Secondly, we must firmly maintain the authority of the international rule of law. International law is the common yardstick, applicable to all countries equally and uniformly; there are no exceptions, nor should there be. We do not believe that any country can act as the international policeman, nor do we agree that any country can place itself above others as the international judge. The world cannot retreat to the law of the jungle, whereby the weak fall prey to the strong. Countries must abide by universally recognized international rules, honour jointly agreed international treaties and fulfil their respective international obligations. Major countries should play a leading role and must not engage in double standards or selective application, nor must they impose their will on others. Thirdly, we must uphold the principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. World multipolarity and the democratization of international relations are an irreversible trend of the times. The destiny of the world should be determined by all countries jointly, international rules should be formulated by all countries jointly, and the fruits of development should be enjoyed by all countries jointly. It cannot be that whoever has the stronger fist has the final say, nor can the winner be allowed to take all. We must advocate and practise true multilateralism, promote equality of rights, equality of rules and equality of opportunities for all countries, and continuously enhance the representation and voice of developing countries in the international system. Fourthly, we must support the United Nations in playing a central role. The United Nations is the most universal, representative and authoritative international intergovernmental organization and is an important platform for all countries, especially the vast number of small and medium-sized countries, to participate in international affairs on an equal footing. The more complex the international situation becomes, the more we must maintain the authority and status of the United Nations. The role of the United Nations must be strengthened rather than weakened. We should not cherry pick our commitment to the Organization, nor should we bypass the United Nations and create alternative mechanisms. The Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As such, its status and role are irreplaceable. The victory of the Second World War defended the moral red line of humanity and gave rise to the modern system of international law. Eighty years ago, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East tried Japanese war criminals, severely punishing a group of culprits whose hands were stained with the blood of the people of victim countries. The Tribunal’s rulings upheld international justice, safeguarded human dignity and represented a stern warning against any attempt to resurrect militarism and revive aggression and expansionism. Recently, however, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made regressive statements that defied the tide of history and blatantly linked Taiwan, province of China, with a so-called “existential crisis” of Japan, sending the wrong message that it might intervene militarily in the Taiwan question. China’s recovery of Taiwan is a victorious outcome of the Second World War and an integral part of the post-war international order. This iron-clad fact has been affirmed politically and has irrefutable historical and legal bases. Takaichi’s preposterous remarks constitute a brazen intervention in China’s internal affairs and an open breach of Japan’s international obligations as a defeated country, a wanton challenge to the international order based on international law and a gross violation of the basic norms governing international relations founded on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We urge Japan to face up to history, reflect on its wrongdoings and take concrete actions to address the concerns of the international community in a responsible manner. More than 70 years ago, China put forward the five principles of peaceful coexistence, setting a historical benchmark for the international rule of law. Last year, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative, with adherence to the international rule of law as one of its core principles. As a firm defender of the international rule of law, China has joined almost all universal intergovernmental organizations and acceded to more than 600 international instruments and amendments, faithfully fulfilling its treaty obligations and genuinely honouring its international commitments. China remains committed to working actively with all countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind and to make new contributions to strengthening the international rule of law and promoting world peace and development.

I would like to thank the Secretary- General and our other briefers today. In convening this debate, we appreciate that Somalia has asked us to reflect on the rule of law, not as an abstraction, but as a guarantor of sovereignty, dignity and justice, and as an element of concrete steps that we can take at the United Nations to advance peace. Upon his election, President Trump inherited a world on fire. As an answer to this, he did not issue strongly worded letters, or theoretical word salad speeches at meetings about meetings. He speaks bluntly and clearly, and he took action. The Trump Administration has already taken a number of concrete actions to usher in a new era of peace. These actions include the President’s leadership in brokering numerous peace agreements, our consistent calls for compliance with those agreements and concrete steps in the Security Council to advance peace and further the rule of law. For example, to address the crisis in the Sudan, we are actively working with partners to facilitate a humanitarian truce and to bring an end to external military support to the parties. The United States, via President Trump’s vision, plays a central role in addressing the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, calling for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to uphold their commitments under the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, supporting the role of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in realizing these historic agreements. Indicating the potential and importance of the role of the Security Council, on Gaza, the Council endorsed President Trump’s 20-point peace plan via its historic resolution on the implementation of the peace plan and authorization of an international stabilization force for Gaza (resolution 2803 (2025)). On Haiti, the Security Council also adopted an innovative approach, spearheaded by President Trump, to address the urgent security crisis, authorizing the Gang Suppression Force and the United Nations Support Office in Haiti, and taking into account the key roles of regional bodies, including the Organization of American States. These measures are aimed at addressing the drivers of insecurity in Haiti, thereby supporting the rule of law at the national and international levels, and helping the Haitian Government to ultimately reassume security responsibility. On Western Sahara, United States-penned resolution 2797 (2025), adopted in October, resulted in the Council voicing strong support for negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable resolution based on Morocco’s credible and realistic autonomy proposal. The United States has also strongly supported faithful and full implementation of United Nations sanctions to counter threats and ultimately support stability and the rule of law. This includes the recently renewed Al-Shabaab sanctions regime to combat impunity and instability in Somalia and our continuing efforts to press for full implementation of the Council’s reinstated sanctions on Iran, which are targeted at countering the proliferation threats that Iran continues to pose. The regime has posed a threat to international peace and security for decades through violence and intimidation. As a result of putting money in the pockets of terrorists and funding its nuclear and missile programmes instead of the basic needs of the people of Iran, we have seen that the Iranian people have had enough. We expect full implementation of United Nations sanctions measures on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address the illicit activities that generate revenue for its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes. For example, too many countries are failing to implement United Nations sanctions, thereby allowing North Korean cyberactors and information technology workers to continue malicious cyberactivities that it uses to fund the unlawful development of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, we continue to take action to safeguard and support freedom of navigation and maritime security. This includes countering threats to maritime traffic in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Unfortunately, we also have to continue to express deep concerns about China’s expansive and unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea that do not have a basis in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In closing, the United States, via President Trump’s singular commitment to peace and security, remains committed to further advancing the cause of peace around the world.

It is an honour for my delegation to welcome and greet you, Mr. President, at the flagship event of the Somali presidency, and we congratulate you on assuming the presidency. We appreciate the convening of this open debate, which addresses a very timely issue at a time when the international order faces serious threats and challenges. We welcome and thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his wise leadership. We thank him, His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, President of the African Institute of International Law for their participation and their valuable contributions today. In the wake of the horrors perpetrated during the Second World War, the international community enshrined the essential principles of international law in the Charter of the United Nations. This founding document, together with others that enshrine principles and norms of international law and international humanitarian law and their application in judicial precedents, has served as a legal and moral compass in building a more just world in which the nations and peoples of the world can live together in harmony. This rules-based international order has allowed us to coexist for 80 years in recognition of our interdependence and shared humanity. Through this universal legally binding framework, we have been able to defend our national interests and correct historical and ongoing injustices that have threatened global coexistence and continue to be used as a strategy of division and conquest, such as colonialism, apartheid, segregation, territorial disputes, aggression and other unilateral measures. However, this system, built on the sacrifice of millions of human lives and the joint commitment to peace by the nations of the world, is under siege. In the current scenario, short-term thinking appears to be gaining ground at the expense of the vision of sustainable peace on which the United Nations was founded. In 2024 alone, $2.7 trillion dollars were spent on military expenditure. This sum represents a development financing gap of $4 trillion. These resources could have been better used to meet urgent needs such as humanitarian aid, climate adaptation and peace education, among others. Therefore, in a contradictory exercise between discourse and practice, some who claim to defend peace continue to fuel war in a downward spiral that ignores the need to deprive it of the resources that sustain it. This challenging scenario has a negative impact on humankind and affects the credibility of this Organization. The perceived erosion of the principles of the Charter is not due to a lack of legitimacy or effectiveness on the part of the institution, but rather to a chronic deficit of political will and consistency on the part of its Member States, especially those with special veto power. It is urgent to restore the trust that the world has placed in this Organization, and this can be achieved only through concrete actions such as the urgent reform of this body, among others. In the same vein, it is also necessary to support peacekeeping operations in their efforts to strengthen the rule of law. It is important that the Council continue to give these operations robust mandates, given their preventive role in reducing the risk of relapse into conflict and strengthening national capacities. The fact is that we need the United Nations just as much as the United Nations needs us. Given the threats facing the international legal system, we believe it is essential to elevate the role of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, as these bodies represent the backbone of the international rule of law. In this context, it is necessary that from now on the Council be able to always receive and hear directly from the authorities of both Courts, as a complement to the reports we receive. Panama, as a country that continues to be committed to peace, believes in the collective responsibility to bring to justice those who endeavour to create more wars, more conflicts and more division. In this regard, we believe that the rules-based international order must apply to all countries equally, regardless of their size, economic or military power, or any claim to political or moral superiority. If we want to guarantee international peace and security, we must recognize our sovereign equality under international law. This principle also reminds us that the laws governing relations between States can evolve, expand and reorganize as long as the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations are respected; the global standard of dignity and justice established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is upheld; the protection of civilians is guaranteed and the loss of human life is prevented. That is why there must be clear limits and red lines that must not be crossed. Using spurious arguments to violate human rights or murder innocent civilians are actions that attempt in bad faith to distort international law. In this regard, strengthening our support for international legal mechanisms for conflict resolution is essential. In July 2025, resolution 2788 (2025) was adopted, based on Chapter VI of the Charter, on the peaceful settlement of disputes. This indicates that there is still a common will and understanding to commit ourselves and move forward together towards the ideals that once united us. It is also crucial to strengthen the role of mechanisms that are already revitalizing the basis of international law, such as the Peacebuilding Commission and regional organizations, through initiatives that promote negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and peacebuilding. Lastly, allow me to express our sincere appreciation to the countries of the African continent for their relentless pursuit of peace and ongoing dialogue. This pursuit has been demonstrated by the work of organizations such as the African Union, which represents a continent that, despite having suffered the injustice of colonialism, exploitation and appropriation of its resources, persists in its mission to achieve and practice the ideals of a shared humanity in line with its philosophy known as ubuntu, embodied in leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Patrice Lumumba. This is a great example of the notion of peacebuilding, which can be achieved only when everyone benefits. May this principled leadership serve to remind us that it is indeed possible to work for the common good of the peoples of the world. Diplomacy, unlike war, is not and should not be a business. The old politics, which upheld the supremacy of might makes right, should have ended with the Second World War. Let us unite so that diplomacy prevails.

I would like to thank the Secretary- General for his briefing, which reminds us of our duties under the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, His Excellency Mr. Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, and the founding President of the African Institute of International Law, Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, for their briefings. Somalia has rightly chosen international law as the main topic of debate for its presidency of the Council. Since 1945, the Charter of the United Nations has been the foundation of the international order. It establishes the requirement that the rule of law must prevail over the law of force. The principles of the Charter are the key to effective multilateralism, in which international law, the sovereign equality of States and the peaceful settlement of disputes prevail over the arbitrary use of force or war. There are too many violations of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, whether in the Sudan, the Great Lakes region, Gaza or Ukraine. However, the obstructionist stance of certain States hinders the Security Council’s ability to act. Yet every silence in the face of these violations fuels mistrust and weakens our collective credibility. In this context, France intends to reaffirm its commitment to effective multilateralism. We remain faithful to the principles that underpin our identity and unite a majority of States around the world. For example, together with Brazil, China, Jordan, South Africa and Kazakhstan, we launched the global initiative in support of international humanitarian law led by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which now brings together almost 100 States. An international conference on this initiative will be held at the end of the year in Jordan. France also reaffirms its commitment to international judicial institutions and their independence, particularly the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. We emphasize this commitment as negotiations commence on establishing a multilateral legal framework to better respond to crimes against humanity. International law is not an abstract constraint but a means of protection: the protection of peace through its security architecture, the protection of fundamental rights through universal conventions and the enhanced protection of civilians in times of conflict through international humanitarian law. This tangible and essential protection must be upheld. It cannot be subject to exceptions or compromises, and international law cannot be invoked selectively. Defending international law also means recognizing that multilateralism must be able to evolve. In 2026, France will continue to advocate for more representative, effective and operational global governance. We will remain fully committed to reforming the Security Council in order to increase its representativeness and legitimacy by expanding both categories of membership and strengthening Africa’s presence within it. France is convinced that reform in this area is possible and that it is imperative to begin negotiations on the basis of a draft text, without waiting for a consensus that is unattainable and indeed not required by the Charter. Furthermore, France will continue to promote our initiative, undertaken alongside Mexico, to regulate the veto in cases of mass atrocities, currently endorsed by 107 States. The responsible use of the veto is a guarantee of greater Security Council effectiveness. Lastly, France will continue to call on the Security Council to fully assume its responsibilities and make use of all the instruments conferred on it by the Charter. This includes, in particular, the implementation of Chapter VI, as in the Sudan for example. For the same reason, the Council must not shy away from referring matters to the International Court of Justice, the growing activity of which confirms its central role in the architecture of peaceful dispute settlement and in strengthening the law. In a world rife with crises, international law remains our best guarantee against arbitrariness and violence. France will continue, within the Council and beyond, to work for effective multilateralism based on law, responsibility and respect for international institutions.

We thank the Somalian delegation for organizing an open debate on the very acute and topical issue of reaffirming international rule of law with the view to strengthening international peace and security. We listened closely to the statement made by Secretary-General António Guterres. Unfortunately, the Secretary-General did not find the time or apparently the desire to listen carefully to the members of the Security Council. I hope that this part of our statement will be conveyed to the Secretary-General without edits. We also listened attentively to the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, and the President of the African Institute of International Law, Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf. Modern-day international law, which is based on the Charter of the United Nations in all its integrity, is an asset of humankind, and its protection is one of the main objectives of our Organization. But the United Nations Charter is not a “menu” from which anyone can pick provisions that suit our former Western partners geopolitically. It is a holistic document in all its integrity, entirety and with inherent interrelations. If one turns to one principle of the Charter, one must not forget to quote the others. The principle of the sovereign equality of States, which gave a voice to all countries regardless of their size, economic and military capabilities; the principle of self-determination of peoples, which allowed most countries in the world to throw off colonial shackles; the principle of the non-use of force other than in accordance with the United Nations Charter, which has so far prevented a global catastrophe of world war — these are norms without which humankind cannot exist, at least in a form that can be called civilized. A world in which there is legitimacy for interfering in the internal affairs of States or disregard for their immunity and independence is a fertile ground for economically and technologically powerful States, and their victims must obediently accept this reality. Let us not forget the principle of cooperation, which is being meticulously swept under the rug. Members should ask themselves, when was the last time they heard about the existence of this principle? And yet, it is just as much a legal principle as the others I just listed. Moreover, the International Court of Justice rightly stated that, in accordance with Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, the pillars of our Organization, in addition to maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social and humanitarian nature, are the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self- determination of peoples. Do we remember that? The 1970 Declaration on Principles of Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States also speaks of this. Who at the Organization is working towards making this objective a reality? None of the reforms being carried out today even mentions this. We can all see what is transpiring in the world. Against the backdrop of events that have taken place in less than a month of 2026, a legitimate question arises: is international law nothing but a buzz word? Perhaps we should acknowledge it as being dead and move on to the “brave new world” in which might makes right? Here, we should recall how modern-day international law was created. It was not the product of armchair professors or romantic dreamers. The United Nations Charter and the body of core multilateral conventions were written by people who had endured the agony of the Second World War and had seen first-hand a world in which respect for treaties began to be viewed as a pointless formality, a world in which one State proclaimed itself to represent the exceptional race with rights to the resources of its neighbours near and far and in which people residing in those territories had either to be decimated or simply starved to death. These very people, who achieved the armed victory over the heinous ideology of fascism, Nazism and militarism, set out the aforementioned principles and founded the Organization to defend them. Having won the military and economic struggle against evil, these people determined that military and economic might should not rule the world. They were the first to prioritize cooperation rather than confrontation, even though at that time they were divided by stark ideological barriers. These were the people who enshrined in the United Nations Charter that: “[w]e the peoples of the United Nations determined […] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. Far from all the objectives set before the Organization have been met. For some time, that seemed to be due to ideological confrontation. Then the confrontation ended, and an era of peace, economic cooperation and prosperity was likely to commence, but something went awry. We began to be told, and we are still being told, that the principle of cooperation and good-neighbourly relations exists only for the “chosen” or the “anointed”, while economic warfare — euphemistically named sanctions — is a legitimate tool and a norm of international law, and technological cooperation should be organized in such a way as to perpetuate the technological backwardness of developing nations. We have been told that the expansion and rearming of the NATO military bloc, which engaged in a series of illegal military actions from Yugoslavia to Libya, is a measure that promotes peace and security and that the country that this bloc was created to oppose should calmly look on as high- tech military infrastructure advances towards its borders. Back in 2007, in Munich, the President of Russia directly raised the following questions: “Whom is this expansion directed against? And what has become of the assurances given by Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? What of these statements now? Does anybody even remember them?” The ideologues of this aggressive approach were confident and even openly stated that Russia would keep quiet, even were such expansion to be effected in violation of existing international legal obligations, as was the case with Ukraine, which, in its Declaration of State Sovereignty, undertook not to participate in military blocs and subsequently, in the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, undertook not to allow its territory to be used to the detriment of Russia’s security. Russia was supposed to bite its tongue even when a Western-sponsored coup d’état, involving neo-Nazi groups, was orchestrated in Ukraine to accelerate plans to turn the country into an “anti-Russia” and the Government that came to power essentially became an avatar of NATO forces, unleashing a war against the Russian population of Donbas — a war that, to this day, it is unwilling to end. Thus, a unique opportunity to foster genuine cooperation for the benefit of all, rather than just a few, was allowed to slip away, and the world lapsed into confrontation. As President Putin said in the aforementioned speech back in 2007, “[i]n international affairs, there is an increasing trend to resolve issues on the basis of so-called ‘political expediency’. [...] And this, of course, is exceedingly dangerous. It leads to a situation in which no one feels safe anymore [...] Because no one can hide behind international law as if it were a stone wall.” Some of our European partners have now experienced this first-hand. This is how their so-called “rules-based order” works, which they themselves promoted and to which they have now fallen victim. Revolution, as we know, devours its own children. Let us ask ourselves a question. Was this a rational choice, even for those who opted for confrontation? We believe that it was not. The world is plunging into the abyss of geopolitical economic crisis, which is also afflicting the populations of those countries that had banked on domination through force. We are convinced that the way out of this multifaceted crisis does not lie, as the elites of those countries believe, in planting a “blossoming garden” behind whose barbed-wire fence the majority of humankind suffers. We must not allow the most terrifying predictions of science fiction writers to come to pass, whereby people are divided into the privileged, who enjoy long lives, and the suffering, who in their short lives, provide for the welfare of the former. The restoration of adherence to international law is therefore not a theoretical task, but the only way to save humankind. If we allow this opportunity to slip away, there might be no second chance. It is our firm view that no sensible person would want to live in a world where, for example, the international law of the sea does not operate — one where freedom of navigation on the high seas can be threatened through acts of force on the basis of the domestic legislation of individual States; where, in violation of international aviation law, civilian aircraft are prevented from flying as a result of national prohibitions; and where sovereign State assets protected by immunity — the earnings of an entire nation — can be stolen by a handful of greedy globalist elites, who have been plundering humankind for years through fraudulent financial institutions. That is not to mention the forcible abduction of the Head of an independent State on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the district court of a country. A world that lives by such rules can hardly last long, and even if it did, it would hardly be a humane one but rather a dystopian hellscape. We must all fight for international law. Every voice here counts. The fight for international law is a fight for the ordinary meaning of words, such that a violation is called a violation. We know that for many countries telling the truth represents a courageous step that often entails threats and coercion. But championing the truth is no easy feat. The United Nations has a pivotal role to play in this struggle. At present, we must acknowledge that the Organization is not up to the task. To remedy this situation, it needs to regain its independence, instead of taking the side of the mighty and the wealthy, as it now does. That is no easy task, but we must prevail; otherwise, the Organization will lose its role and significance, with catastrophic consequences for the entire world.

We thank the Somali presidency for choosing the rule of law as the theme for today’s signature open debate, which is both essential and timely. We thank His Excellency Secretary-General António Guterres; His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission; and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, founding President of the African Institute of International Law, for their insightful briefings. My country’s history reflects both the fragility and the resilience of international law. When the principles of the Charter of the United Nations are upheld, nations can reclaim their independence and build free, democratic and prosperous societies. When those principles are disregarded, the cost is measured in human suffering and the denial of fundamental rights. The rule of law is not merely a set of norms, it is a vital shield against tyranny, oppression and violations of human rights. In this context, I would like to make three points. First, the rule of law is what transforms power into responsibility and vulnerability into rights. It is the dividing line between a world governed by rules and a world governed by force. By translating sovereign equality into legal equality, the rule of law provides stability, predictability and protection for all States, regardless of size or influence, and supports cooperation based on mutual respect. Upholding the rule of law is not a concession by major Powers but a strategic necessity that serves the long-term interests of the entire international community. Secondly, the Charter provides a clear legal framework for maintaining international peace and security. Its provisions must be applied fully and consistently, not selectively. The norms of the Charter are binding legal commitments that form the backbone of international peace and security. In this context, the consistent application of peaceful settlement mechanisms reflected in Article 33 of the Charter would strengthen preventive action and reduce both the risk of escalation and the number of conflicts. Likewise, respect for Article 27, paragraph 3, would further support the proper functioning and credibility of the Council by ensuring that decision-making reflects restraint and adherence to the Charter framework. Thirdly, reaffirming the rule of law requires more than rhetoric. It requires consistency. It requires that the same rules be applied by all States, without exception. It requires credible accountability for grave violations of international law, including violations of international humanitarian law. And it requires the Security Council to act in a manner that reinforces legality, predictability and respect for international law, as affirmed by multiple presidential statements in the past. As we mark the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations, the Council has a responsibility to demonstrate that international law still matters. Upholding the rule of law is not about constraining States, it is about protecting them — all of them. Latvia stands ready to work with all members of the Security Council to strengthen respect for the rule of law and to ensure that the principles of the Charter continue to safeguard present and future generations.

Liberia thanks Somalia for convening this important debate, and the briefers for their insightful contributions. We are meeting at a time at which the international legal order, the foundation of multilateralism, is being tested, not by the absence of rules but by uncertainty in application. The question before us is not whether international law exists. It is whether it still governs conduct when it matters most. For Liberia, the rule of law is practical, not ornamental. It does govern conduct. As the briefers and many speakers before us rightly pointed out, the rule of law allocates responsibility. By producing consequences, it serves as a guarantor of peace and security. Guiding the interaction among States, international law is the architecture that makes peaceful coexistence possible. In a system of unequal Powers, international law allows sovereignty to be more than a mere declaration and peace to be more than a pause between conflicts. Liberia was present in San Francisco in 1945 when this journey began, one of only four African countries. Liberia therefore feels that it has the credibility to say that the Charter of the United Nations was drafted with clarity of purpose. It did not promise convenience. It promised restraint. It did not privilege power; it disciplines it. Its obligations are not optional, and its principles were never intended to apply selectively. The Charter assumes something fundamental, and that is that peace cannot be sustained if rules are treated as discretionary, or if commitments are honoured only when aligned with immediate interests. It places responsibility where it truly belongs — on all States, without distinction — recognizing that influence brings obligation, not exemption. The credibility of the international system depends on consistency. All of the briefers made this point clearly. When international law is invoked in one context and disregarded in another, trust is eroded, not only in specific outcomes but in the system itself. Over time, this weakens deterrence, fuels grievance and erodes the predictability on which international peace and security depend. Africa’s recent experience offers a different path. Across the continent, States have increasingly turned to judicial and arbitral mechanisms to resolve boundary and maritime disputes. These decisions have not always been easy, but they have been respected and they have been necessary. What is more, they have prevented escalation and conflicts. They have demonstrated that law, when used, actually works. However, these gains are fragile. Confidence falters when access to justice appears uneven, when accountability is constrained, or when compliance becomes negotiable. A system perceived as unequal cannot command lasting respect. Certainly, the Council can agree on that. There is an African proverb that captures the stakes: when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Today, the grass is suffering — civilians in conflict zones, smaller States navigating geopolitical rivalries and communities bearing the consequences of decisions taken too far away from their own realities. The erosion of legal restraint does not remain abstract; it produces human cost. Peace is not sustained by declarations alone. It is sustained by conduct — predictable, restrained and consistent, with agreed rules. The Charter provides useful tools for this purpose, and they include negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judicial settlement and regional arrangements. These mechanisms are not signs of weakness. They are truly safeguards against escalation and insecurity. When they are bypassed, ignored, or applied unevenly, the Council’s preventive capacity ultimately diminishes. Liberia believes that the Security Council can restore confidence and reinvigorate multilateralism by acting with greater discipline in three areas. First, it must affirm, clearly and consistently, the binding character of international judicial decisions and encourage their use as instruments of prevention, not last resort. Secondly, it must strengthen operational coherence between the Council and regional mechanisms, particularly in Africa, so that political engagement, mediation and legal processes reinforce rather than undercut one another. Thirdly, it must exercise restraint and consistency in the interpretation and implementation of Charter obligations, ensuring that Council action reflects principles, not expediency. As many have already noted, this year marks 80 years since the adoption of the United Nations Charter. The Charter’s relevance has not diminished. What is at issue is fidelity to it. If we want a system governed by law rather than leverage, then adherence must be uniform. If we want peace that lasts, then justice cannot be selectively applied. And if multilateralism is to remain credible, then the Council must lead by example. That is why, for Liberia, the choice before us is not between law and politics. It is whether politics will continue to be guided by law, as we promise it will be, in order to ensure global justice, equality, security and peace for all of mankind.

I thank Somalia for proposing this timely open debate, and I thank the Secretary-General and the briefers for their presentations. The rule of law has been and must continue to be the cornerstone of the multilateral system. Today more than ever, the world needs to reaffirm that all power is subject to the law and that international law constitutes the common ground that makes peaceful coexistence among nations possible. The Charter of the United Nations continues to be our essential guide and reference. In the face of the serious challenges facing humanity — the genocide in Gaza, interference in the internal affairs of other States, the resurgence of conflicts in various regions of the world and the climate crisis — it is imperative to remember that the Charter is not a programmatic text but a legally binding treaty that obligates all States under the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Respect for sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the fulfilment of international obligations in good faith are not abstract principles: they are concrete guarantees of international peace and security. No State may invoke particular interests to deviate from the principles of the Charter, nor forget that the weakening of international law undermines the multilateral order and increases the risk of conflict. Defending the international rule of law is, in essence, defending stability, predictability and peaceful coexistence. Colombia also believes that any national, regional or global strategy to address new threats to the rule of law must be based on the provisions of the Charter, a text that provides the necessary tools to respond to the challenges we face as societies. Any collaborative process must adhere to the purposes and principles of the Charter and must also take into account the diverse contributions of countries — given their different levels of development — to bringing about these challenges and their capacity to respond to them. For its part, the Council must contribute to strengthening the rule of law in each of its actions. The Council must reinforce the fundamental principles and purposes of the Charter, not deviate from them, and recognize that, while threats evolve, responses must remain anchored in the existing legal framework. Even in the light of the evolution of the concept of “threats to peace” in Article 39, the international legal framework itself provides the necessary tools to respond legitimately and effectively. Additional instruments available to the Council, such as the establishment of peacekeeping operations or special political missions, also serve preventive functions by reducing the risk of relapse into conflict and strengthening national capacities. Any response, however, must be based on the principle of cooperation between States and must involve collective and coordinated interventions, centred on the Organization. We therefore call on the United Nations and its Member States to focus their actions on complementing each other’s efforts and working in a harmonious and concerted manner. That said, we believe that there could be better coordination within the United Nations and that the respective mandates of the entities of the system could be implemented more coherently in order to improve their impact. All that is required for this is the political will of the community of States. The Sixth Committee of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization are natural forums for such coordination. The Secretary-General’s annual report on strengthening and coordinating United Nations activities aimed at promoting the rule of law should be the starting point for these discussions. The Council, for its part, must remain the privileged political forum for discussing issues related to the rule of law when they compromise international peace and security. The Council also has a responsibility to issue robust mandates and instruments that are always grounded in international law, in all its actions and in all contexts. Colombia emphasizes that the full application of international law is the only way to respond to the many challenges we face together, and it is also the only possible way to ensure its long-term sustainability and effectiveness and to foster a sense of belonging among local communities. The rule of law has been an achievement for all our countries, after decades of construction and as a fruit of our decision to establish it as a central element of our collective action. There is no better alternative, and all our citizens depend on its implementation and respect. The Organization’s eightieth anniversary offers us a timely opportunity to renew our commitments. Colombia invites the Members of the Council to uphold the Charter as the supreme framework for international coexistence without relativizing it when it limits the use of power in favour of the law; to promote the rule of law without selectivity, convenience or undue interference; and to ensure an inclusive and gender- sensitive approach in all policies and programmes. Lastly, Colombia reiterates its strict adherence to international law in each and every one of its actions and invites the States of the Council to do the same.

I thank Somalia for convening today’s meeting on this important topic. We also thank the Secretary-General, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission and Judge Yusuf for their briefings. The United Kingdom’s ongoing commitment to the rule of law is a key part of its national story, which began more than 800 years ago when the Magna Carta was signed, guaranteeing rights to justice and a fair trial. The rule of law remains fundamental to the international system. It is the bedrock of stable democratic societies and prosperous economies. As embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, it is key to the maintenance of international peace and security. We must never lose sight of why nations first came together in this forum, and the principles that continue to bind us together. Respect for international law is fundamental to offering a better future to citizens from the Middle East to the Sudan, to Haiti and beyond, and, of course, in Ukraine, which has been on the receiving end of an egregious breach of the Charter of the United Nations. The United Kingdom stands firm in its support for the institutions that defend and advance the international rule of law. The International Court of Justice’s demanding workload is testament to its impartiality, independence and legal rigour. We also remain steadfast in our support for the International Criminal Court and its vital work to end impunity for the gravest crimes. The United Kingdom believes that international law delivers real benefits and helps us address contemporary global challenges. For example, the recent entry into force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction marks a major milestone in safeguarding our shared marine environment. As we speak, work towards a convention on crimes against humanity is under way, representing a significant opportunity to strengthen prevention and accountability. And progress on a draft convention for the protection of persons in the event of disasters reflects the importance of legal frameworks that enhance preparedness and cooperation. These efforts show what is possible when States work collectively to build and refine the international legal order to address new and emerging challenges. In this context, the United Kingdom was pleased to recently pledge additional voluntary contributions to a range of United Nations funds supporting participation in these initiatives and the rule of law. These include the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law; the operationalization of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction; the participation of developing States at the negotiating conference on the protection of persons in the event of disasters; and the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the International Court of Justice. The United Kingdom’s enduring commitment to the rule of law is unwavering, reflecting its firm commitment to peace, international cooperation, accountability and the United Nations Charter.

As we reflect on the eightieth anniversary of the Charter of the United Nations, this debate offers an opportunity not only to reaffirm principles, but to renew political commitment. Revitalizing multilateralism requires ensuring that international law guides action, rather than follows it. It means ensuring that international law and the United Nations Charter apply to States in the same way; that might does not make right; that solidarity and responsibility towards each other prevail over war, repression and polarization. Indeed, Greece attaches great importance to the pre-eminence of international law, respect for the United Nations Charter and the resolution of disputes among States through peaceful means, including recourse to judicial proceedings. We wish to highlight the following points as regards the international rule of law as a pillar of multilateralism and as a means to achieve justice and peace. First, a major achievement regarding the rule of law at the international level and multilateralism relates to the conclusion of a wide range of important multilateral treaties under the auspices of the United Nations, a number of which contain provisions on dispute resolution, judicial or non-judicial. We underscore in this respect the advancement of the rule of law, within the United Nations, in the framework of the protection of human rights, contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter, through the conclusion of the core human rights conventions. Major achievements of multilateralism regarding the international rule of law also include conventions such as those on the law of the sea, a major achievement in this respect being the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as regards its universal and unified character. We welcome in this regard a recent landmark development with the entry into force on 17 January of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The Agreement implements UNCLOS and sets specific, legally binding provisions on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Secondly, Greece wishes to underscore the impact of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice on the settlement of disputes and of its advisory opinions on the clarification and consolidation of international law. Besides, alongside the International Court of Justice, the jurisprudence and advisory opinions of regional and sectoral courts and tribunals are providing considerable contributions regarding the interpretation and application of international law. Thirdly, serious challenges are, however, present or lying ahead. We must absolutely counter the increasing trend around the world of actions which undermine multilateralism, its institutions and the international rule of law. A world without the rule of law as its core pillar is a more dangerous and violent world, a world without peace or justice, particularly for smaller States. The Security Council bears a particular responsibility in this regard. When violations of international law go unaddressed, the credibility of the Council itself is at stake. Reaffirming the rule of law must therefore be accompanied by a renewed commitment to restraint, consistency and support for peaceful settlement and accountability mechanisms. In this context, threats or use of force against the territorial integrity of States, in stark violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, continue unrelenting. In a number of instances these threats are also directed against States which are invoking a legal right that is well established under international law. Furthermore, in a number of cases States parties to international disputes are taking actions aggravating or endangering the maintenance of international peace and security or impeding the peaceful settlement of disputes. They equally disregard decisions of the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals. Moreover, important legal gaps on criminal accountability still exist. There is no legally binding international instrument currently in force on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The process leading to the convening of a United Nations diplomatic conference to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument has just started. Moreover, the number of States accepting the optional clause of the Statute of the International Court of Justice has showed no significant increase in comparative terms for years. Lastly, the rule of law at the international level has an obvious impact on the domestic level as regards accountability mechanisms, a comprehensive system of judicial remedies and a range of independent authorities and institutions. Transparency, the fight against corruption and organized crime, as well as respect for international human rights law, constitute essential components reflecting developments at the international level. In conclusion, the rule of law at the international level, multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes are closely intertwined. Their enhancement leads to justice among nations and to the maintenance of international peace and security, with tangible effects on the rule of law at the domestic level. Greece will always stand on the side of the international rule of law and all efforts to enhance peace, justice and multilateralism.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo congratulates the Federal Republic of Somalia on its presidency of the Security Council and thanks it for organizing this open debate. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Secretary-General António Guterres; Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission; and Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, Founding President of the African Institute of International Law. This debate is being held at a pivotal moment, as we celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the Charter of the United Nations. As a country affected by armed conflict, the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains deeply committed to the promotion of international peace and security based on respect for the international rule of law. Eighty years after the adoption of the Charter, the Security Council is called upon to undertake a clear reflection on the progress achieved and on the persistent challenges to the rule of law among nations. The gradual erosion of this normative foundation weakens multilateralism and fuels a crisis of confidence in international institutions. The international rule of law constitutes the cornerstone of the multilateral system. It is based on respect for the Charter, the good-faith observance of international obligations and the strengthening of the three pillars of the Organization: international peace and security, human rights and development. The principles enshrined in the Charter, in particular respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force, continue to be seriously tested in several regions of the world. These recurrent violations undermine the credibility of the international legal order and weaken trust among States. In this regard, the persistent security situation in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo illustrates the challenges faced by the multilateral system when the fundamental principles of the Charter are not fully respected. Despite my Government’s engagement in regional mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the auspices of the African Union and in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, the results on the ground remain below expectations. This reality underscores the importance of the effective implementation of Security Council decisions, in particular those calling for strict respect for territorial integrity and the cessation of any unauthorized foreign military presence. Multilateralism is currently undergoing a phase of weakening, marked by the resurgence of armed conflicts, the rise of unilateralism and the effects of global crises. In this context, it is imperative to reaffirm that the international rule of law remains the preferred path to preventing conflicts, promoting justice and ensuring sustainable peace. Chapter VI of the Charter, relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes, remains an essential and sometimes underutilized tool. Its more systematic activation, combined with increased recourse to mediation, preventive diplomacy and international judicial mechanisms, would help to replace force with law in the conduct of international relations. Strengthening the international rule of law also requires better coordination among the various organs of the United Nations, in full respect of their respective mandates. Coherent action by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and regional organizations would enhance the legitimacy and impact of collective efforts for peace. In this regard, regional organizations, in particular African ones, are playing an increasingly important role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and in strengthening the legal and institutional capacities of States. The Democratic Republic of the Congo calls on the Security Council to fully assume its responsibility under Article 24 of the Charter by placing the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law at the heart of all United Nations actions. This entails, in particular, rigorous implementation of the resolutions adopted, increased support for fragile States and the coherent use of the instruments at the Council’s disposal. Furthermore, in situations of conflict, it remains crucial for the Council to ensure that humanitarian actors are guaranteed unimpeded access to provide assistance to civilian populations in need. In conclusion, the Democratic Republic of the Congo reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the ideals and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It remains committed to collective action aimed at building an international order based on law, justice and multilateralism, which is the guarantee of a lasting and inclusive peace.

The representative of China has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

China firmly rejects the erroneous remarks made just now by the representative of the United States regarding the issue of the South China Sea and is therefore compelled to make a stern response. I wish to emphasize that China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and their adjacent waters and has sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea are grounded in a solid historical and legal foundation. I also wish to remind the United States representative that the United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and therefore has no standing to present itself as a judge of UNCLOS or to point fingers at other countries. The United States, in complete disregard for the historical context and objective facts regarding the South China Sea, has been stirring up tensions and sowing discord. It has even deployed offensive weapons, including land-based intermediate-range missiles, in the South China Sea and, under the pretext of freedom of navigation, has repeatedly sent advanced ships and aircraft to conduct military reconnaissance and exercises, intruding into China’s territorial waters and airspace and the waters and airspace surrounding China’s islands and reefs. Who is engaging in coercive and bullying behaviour in the South China Sea? Who is disrupting regional stability and threatening freedom of navigation and maritime security? Who is undermining the international rule of law? The facts speak for themselves.

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.

I thank Somalia for convening this open debate and for selecting the theme, which rightly stands at the centre of the Security Council’s agenda. Kazakhstan views the rule of law as a central pillar of international peace and security. Lasting peace is impossible without the rule of law, and international peace and security can be maintained only on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations. Today it is crucial to reaffirm once again that the rules agreed by all Member States must be respected by all. This common understanding has underpinned the Council’s previous deliberations, aimed at a deeper discussion of how, within the United Nations, we can uphold peace and security through the promotion of the rule of law. In this regard, Kazakhstan highlights several priorities. An important element of the rule of law is strict compliance with international law. The selective application of norms, the use of double standards and the politicization of legal mechanisms undermine the international order. We call on all States to refrain from the threat or use of force, to respect sovereign equality and territorial integrity and to resolve disputes exclusively by peaceful means. We equally call for the fullest compliance with existing international norms against the use, threat of use or testing of nuclear weapons or any other type of weapon of mass destruction. In this regard, we believe that upholding the existing regimes of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a key collective priority. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which marked the fifth anniversary of its entry into force just a few days ago, is also becoming an integral part of the international legal architecture, with the majority of United Nations Member States having joined it. We also note the particular importance of the global initiative to galvanize political commitment to international humanitarian law, launched by Kazakhstan, together with a group of States and the International Committee of the Red Cross. To date, 99 States have joined the Initiative. In this regard, we encourage all States to engage actively in its implementation and to participate in the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War, scheduled to take place later this year in Amman. Moreover, where serious breaches of international law occur, it is important for the international community to act consistently and to ensure that existing mechanisms function effectively. The Security Council should therefore support the strengthening of national justice systems and the rule of law in post-conflict societies. In this regard, United Nations peace operations play an important role in supporting national institutions, including judicial, police and rule of law structures. Kazakhstan underscores that strengthening the rule of law should be regarded as an integral and strategic component of peacekeeping, contributing to sustainable peace and nationally owned post-conflict recovery. Enhancing the role of international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes also remains an important priority. Kazakhstan supports closer interaction between the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, and calls upon States to implement, in good faith, the decisions of the principal judicial organ of the Organization. Kazakhstan is convinced that strengthening peace, justice and multilateralism begins with a return to the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, and with respect for international law as our shared language of security. We stand ready to work with all members of the Council to reinforce the legal foundations of conflict prevention, mediation and peacebuilding, so that international law once again becomes not a subject of dispute, but a pillar of trust.

I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

At the outset, I would like to extend my thanks to the delegation of the sisterly Republic of Somalia for its initiative to organize an open debate on this important subject, and to Secretary-General António Guterres for his briefing. I also extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, and to Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf for their valuable briefings. The United Nations was established following decades of grave human suffering and a harsh historical experience, after which the international community realized that the logic of force would lead us all to further tragedy, conflict and dispute. The Charter of the United Nations thus came to express the will of the human family to turn the page on the past and build a new global order that preserves international peace and security, enhances cooperation among nations, upholds human rights, grants peoples their freedom and right to self-determination and enables them to achieve development and prosperity. While we firmly adhere to the Charter and its principles, we must acknowledge that the international order founded eight decades ago and reshaped following the end of the cold war is undergoing deep transformation, witnessing a state of flux and uncertainty and suffering from a decline in credibility and effectiveness. The gap is widening between the provisions and principles of the Charter and the practices we witness on the ground. Furthermore, growing polarization, bickering and tension among major Powers have contributed to weakening multilateral institutions and undermining their effectiveness. Selectivity in the application of international law, continued grave violations of its rules and the inability to enforce United Nations resolutions have led to a loss of confidence among our peoples in the justice of the international order and its ability to protect them. Acknowledging these challenges is not intended to undermine multilateralism or detract from the role of the United Nations, but rather to offer a path to frankness and transparency in order to formulate a clear and realistic vision of the steps necessary to restore confidence in the Organization and in multilateral mechanisms. Egypt believes that ongoing efforts to reform the United Nations — foremost among them the UN80 initiative — must be viewed as an opportunity to conduct an objective assessment of the performance of the Organization and its various bodies. The aim must be to restore its effectiveness, develop its working methods, enhance its efficiency and improve its ability to respond to current challenges, provided that the reform process is comprehensive, participatory and transparent and based on the priorities of all Member States, in particular developing States. In conclusion, Egypt affirms that the future of international peace and security is contingent on our collective ability to uphold the Charter, protect the rules and values of international law and uphold the principles of justice, multilateralism and joint action. In that regard, Egypt renews its firm commitment to work with all partners to enhance the credibility of the United Nations, restore its effectiveness and preserve its pivotal role as an inclusive and indispensable platform for collective action and the achievement of international peace and security.

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

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam. We thank Somalia for convening this debate at a time when the world is facing increasingly complex and cross-cutting challenges to the rule of law. ASEAN reaffirms its strong commitment to upholding multilateralism and a rules-based international order. ASEAN member States stress the utmost importance of upholding the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of the sovereign equality of States, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. We affirm our commitment to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We also continue to promote the rule of law in all its aspects and affirm our commitment to peace and security, good governance and the promotion and protection of human rights enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. In this regard, ASEAN reaffirms the importance of upholding international law, including the United Nations Charter and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as ASEAN’s shared values and norms as enshrined in the ASEAN Charter and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, among others. We further emphasize the importance of strengthening preventive mechanisms in addressing emerging and existing challenges to promote peace and security, including through diplomacy, confidence-building measures and inclusive dialogue, in line with international law and ASEAN’s long-standing commitment to conflict prevention. As a rules-based intergovernmental grouping, ASEAN is committed to stability and security in the region. ASEAN treaties and instruments have paved the way for our success. ASEAN member States continue to work with China towards the early conclusion of an effective and substantive code of conduct in the South China Sea consistent with international law, including UNCLOS, and within a mutually agreed timeline. ASEAN is committed to strengthening the ASEAN community and the peaceful resolution of disputes, including through respect for legal and diplomatic processes, without resorting to the threat or use of force, in accordance with the universally recognized principles of international law, including UNCLOS. As we mark the eightieth year of the Charter and the fiftieth year of the Treaty on Amity and Cooperation, ASEAN reaffirms the rule of law and underscores the importance of reinforcing its role through the observance of international obligations in good faith, the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State and the strengthening of multilateral cooperation. In this context, ASEAN underscores the importance of the Security Council acting in an efficient, consistent, transparent and non-selective manner, particularly in the application of international law, in order to uphold its credibility and effectively safeguard international peace and security.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

Indonesia aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) by the representative of the Philippines and would like to add the following in its national capacity. In the past 80 years, the world has largely benefited from a rules-based multilateral order. Indeed, it is true that much remains to be done. Access to justice remains a luxury to many, as is most evident in the long-overdue quest for justice of the Palestinian people. Nevertheless, for Indonesia, international law provides not only legal clarity but also a moral compass in navigating increasingly complex global challenges. This derives from Indonesia’s principle foreign policy — an independent and active foreign policy implemented through mutual respect and partnership, as exemplified, among others, through the 1955 Bandung Principles, the first Declaration of ASEAN Concord of 1976 and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) of 2012. We never believe that power determines justice. Instead, we believe that with great power comes even greater responsibility — the responsibilities to uphold international law without double standards, embrace others and uphold the principles of equality among nations and the peaceful settlement of disputes. In the words of my President, Prabowo Subianto: “we must stand for all — the strong and the weak. Might cannot be right. Right must be right”. Therefore, whichever forums or international arrangements Indonesia has decided to join, please rest assured that Indonesia will bring our firm commitment to the Charter of the United Nations to the table. We will uphold the principles of multilateralism, and we will be the voice of reason, particularly the voice of developing nations and those left behind. Against that background, I wish to underline two points. First, now more than ever, the world must come together to uphold the sanctity of international law. Indonesia has repeatedly underlined that an à la carte implementation of international law will never work. Instead, it will open a dangerous Pandora’s box. Expectations are high that the Council can effectively serve as a bastion of international law. Placing international law at the heart of the Council’s every decision will enable the Council to rise above the paralysis that has unfortunately become more evident in recent years — a paralysis that has unfortunately allowed some grave humanitarian situations to go unanswered, in Gaza and some other parts of the world. Placing international law at its heart means that the Council will ensure accountability across all situations, without exception. We call for every veto cast in the Council should be accompanied by legal justification. This would reaffirm that its exercise is subject to legal responsibility. Further, the Council should also serve as a critical intermediary for dispute settlement, bridging political dialogue and judicial resolution before recourse to the International Court of Justice. Secondly, amid imperfections in the multilateral system, we should come together to improve it. Imperfections should not lead to a retreat from the multilateral system; it should lead to reform through genuine engagement. It is also worth highlighting the need for stronger and mutually reinforcing processes among United Nations organs to ensure the effective implementation of international law. Having regular substantive dialogue between the Security Council and the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, as well as with regional organizations, will help to ensure that international law prevails in all conflict situations. Indonesia will never rely on a broken multilateral system or entrust our future to a world that defies international law. We will continue to work with all to reform the multilateral system to be more effective in maintaining international peace and security — one that is based on the principles of multilateralism and the shared responsibility to uphold the international rule of law.

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa.

South Africa welcomes the convening of this timely open debate, over which His Excellency President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was to preside, as a sign of the importance of its theme in the current international environment. We thank the briefers for their insightful comments. South Africa has always believed in the international rule of law, with the Charter of the United Nations at its core. An international system based on the fundamental legal principles of the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity and political independence inherently benefits all nations, large and small. It has led to the prohibition of interventions in the internal or external affairs of other States, the prohibition of use of force that is not in line with Article 51 of the Charter or duly authorized by the Security Council, obligations to respect and implement treaties in good faith, cooperation among States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for human rights and the self-determination of peoples. Furthermore, it has provided a framework for development by defending the vulnerable against exploitation and coercion. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and all principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The debate today, aimed at reaffirming the international rule of law, is therefore very opportune given the current geopolitical developments, largely characterized by the wanton disregard for international law, a deficit of trust among nations, the erosion of the spirit of cooperation and the inability of the institution, especially the Security Council, to act when required. We therefore appreciate Somalia’s leadership on this issue, building on Security Council presidential statement S/PRST/2014/5. When countries ignore the Charter and act contrary to its central premise, it undermines the credibility of the entire system within which we all undertake our international relations. It erodes trust that the law will protect those most vulnerable to the excesses of power. At times like these, our collective action is required to build a just and a more humane world. Key to the United Nations is the reform of the Security Council with a view to allowing this principal organ of the United Nations to fulfil its mandate and enable the enforcement of the rule of law as a backbone of the maintenance of international peace and security. The unfettered exercise of the veto has largely hindered much- needed action to protect the most vulnerable, even in the midst of a genocide committed in full view of the global public, with national interests prioritized over the maintenance of international peace and security. In this regard, we have seen how the General Assembly has stepped in to address pressing issues in the face of the failure of the Security Council to act. While all the principal organs of the United Nations contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, it is also important to recognize the reinforcing nature of all three pillars of the United Nations and, therefore, that the promotion of, and respect for, human rights and access to justice for the purposes of ensuring accountability will have a meaningful impact on the lives of peoples. We must be clear that the violations of international law are the exception to the normative progress we all have made. Therefore, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure accountability for gross violations, which threaten all of us. A precedent of impunity for those wielding unrestrained power is a dangerous one that threatens the very bedrock of international peace and security. We must therefore be united, as we have been in the past, and rally behind the United Nations in its lofty and noble ambitions, as set out in the Charter. I will conclude by saying that South Africa aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by the representative of Austria on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Rule of Law.

I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

At the outset, I would like to commend Somalia for organizing this timely and important debate and to thank the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, as well as Judge Yusuf and the Secretary-General for their important contributions. The rule of law lies at the very heart of the international order, and if we do not adhere to international law, trust between States will inevitably erode. If there is no accountability for serious crimes within States, societies will not be able to achieve sustainable peace. But with all the conflicts that we are seeing, how do we strengthen international law? We strengthen it by learning from the past, by building on successes that we have seen and achieved, by enhancing knowledge about the significance of international law and by working concretely on its development. I would like to be very concrete about the following points. First, the deliberations last week in the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity underlined that unlike genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity are not yet governed by a universal treaty dedicated to their prevention and punishment. Germany firmly believes that this normative gap must be closed. We therefore call upon all Member States to engage in the negotiations in order to ensure an outcome of global and historical importance. Secondly, in 1994, the Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Not only did that Tribunal make history in handing down the first international judgment based on the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but it also contributed to the legal development of establishing international jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and contributed to justice and accountability after the atrocious genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. I would like to recall this and maybe revisit the judgments of this Tribunal for their historic relevance on the legal distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, clarity about the law goes hand in hand with clarity about the facts. Conflicts often arise, for example, around border disputes. Certainty about borders can avert conflict, war and suffering. I would like to highlight the African Union Border Programme, which, as many Council members undoubtedly know, is a delimitation and demarcation project for clarifying — legally and factually — the exact line of more than 9,000 kilometres of borders between several countries in Africa. My country is proud to have supported this initiative, since 2008, with more than $90 million. Germany is particularly committed to international law and international criminal law, not least because of its own history. Eighty years ago, in the wake of devastation and unprecedented human suffering, a new international order began to take shape. The Nuremberg trials were revolutionary because they introduced a new principle in international law, namely, that individuals should be held accountable for grave violations of international law. And this legacy is still visible today. Almost four years ago, in 2022, in Germany, a judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz convicted a man of crimes against humanity for the crimes he had committed in a prison in Damascus. This is only one of the prominent examples of how Germany is committed to ensuring accountability and bringing justice to the victims of crimes. In sum, let us all learn from the past that peace and justice are inseparable and that international law plays a decisive role in keeping the peace among nations after a conflict and in finding the way back to peace. Let us reconfirm that mutual respect requires us to prevent the recurrence of crimes against humanity and that adhering to international law is at the heart of preventing conflict and keeping the peace. Let us strengthen international law by supporting the United Nations and its institutions, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and by reforming the institution and those parts that have been in need of reform for a long time, including the Security Council. I would like to assure Council members that Germany stands ready to do its part in working with all of them in this endeavour.

I now give the floor to the representative of Ukraine.

In just a few weeks, the world will mark four years since the start of Russia’s unprovoked and treacherous full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, which has brought immense suffering to the Ukrainian people. In recent months, intensive diplomatic efforts, initiated by the United States and supported by our European allies and like-minded countries, have been under way to stop this barbaric war and to achieve a peace that is lasting and just. One of the central questions before us today is accountability. We often hear the argument that in order to reach a stable peace, justice should be set aside, or at least not overemphasized. Some claim that holding perpetrators accountable might complicate negotiations and endanger peace. But is it really true? History gives us a clear answer: justice and accountability are not obstacles to peace; they are its foundation. After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal established a basic principle of international law: those who commit the gravest crimes are individually accountable, regardless of rank or position. Decades later, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda demonstrated that justice contributes to sustainable peace by breaking cycles of violence and enabling reconciliation. In these cases, the Tribunals did not obstruct peace; they made peace possible. The same principle must apply to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This invasion has resulted in systematic atrocities against civilians in occupied territories, mass killings such as those uncovered in Bucha, forced deportations, torture and sexual violence. These crimes were not isolated instances. They were part of a broader, deliberate pattern and clearly constitute crimes against humanity. Today, we witness yet another form of Russia’s criminal conduct — the deliberate destruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which is plunging entire cities into darkness and cold and leaving millions of Ukrainians without heating, electricity and water. These are just a few instances in the history of humankind when suffering on such a magnitude has been inflicted so intentionally on a civilian population. Can we simply look away from crimes of this scale and move on at the negotiating table? Can sustainable peace be built on deliberate indifference to such violations? Ukraine’s position is clear: all those responsible for the crime of aggression, for crimes against humanity and for crimes of war must be held accountable. There can be no selective justice and no immunity. Important steps have already been taken. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants. Last June, an international convention was signed in Strasbourg that establishes a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, a milestone in restoring justice for this gravest crime under international law. The rule of law is the foundation of peace. A peace built without justice is fragile and temporary. A peace built on accountability has the chance to endure. My last point is that we have just heard the Russian representative accusing Ukraine of violating our international obligations regarding military alliances. First of all, this is a lie, and secondly, there can be no justification for a war of aggression.

I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

I thank you very much, Mr. President, for convening this important discussion. In ratifying the Charter of the United Nations, Member States have established a system under which relations between States are governed by agreed upon rules, with the peaceful settlement of disputes being a core purpose of the United Nations. An important dimension of the current rule of law crisis is the erosion of respect for Article 2, paragraph 4, which obligates all of us to refrain in our international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Under the Charter, the use of force is only lawful in self- defence, in accordance with Article 51, or when authorized by the Council. When invoking Article 51, States are to report measures taken to the Council and to provide a clear legal justification. The steady decline in the Council’s practice in this respect has led to dangers to international peace and security. The right of self-determination which occupies a central place in the Charter and in the history of the United Nations is also under significant pressure, both through the overall negative trends concerning the respect for international law and new challenges such as sea level rise. Reaffirming the rule of law, we must also reaffirm, unequivocally, the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. International courts play a crucial role in upholding international law, in particular the Charter. The International Court of Justice has played a key role in adjudicating territorial disputes between States and has the competence to settle disputes between States under numerous United Nations treaties and, hopefully, the treaty on crimes against humanity will soon be added to this list. Also, in exercising its advisory role, the International Court of Justice has been able to play an important role in settling disputes, as illustrated in its advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago. The International Criminal Court (ICC) ensures accountability for the most serious crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. All these crimes are of direct relevance for the work of the Council, which is why it has the power to refer situations to the Court, warranted in situations of particular gravity such as, most recently, in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Court’s role with respect to the crime of aggression deals with the most serious violations of the prohibition of the use of force under the Charter of the United Nations. We hope that more States will join the jurisdictional regime of the ICC over this crime and that this jurisdiction will be elevated to the level of the other crimes. At a time at which international law is challenged in an unprecedented way, political attacks on international courts are, sadly, almost inevitable. Standing up to support them is indispensable for the reaffirmation of the rule of law. We live in times that none of us have witnessed before. International relations are at risk of being thrown back not only to a time prior to the establishment of the United Nations, but indeed to a far more distant and darker past. International law is owned by all of us who have agreed to the rules in the Charter, and it benefits the peoples in whose name we work. It is ultimately the task of those who believe in international law to stand together and to stand up for it and to place it again, as we did in 1945, at the centre of international relations. We look forward to working with all members, including members of the Council, to that end.

I now give the floor to the representative of Malaysia.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate. Malaysia expresses its appreciation to the Secretary-General and the briefers for their valuable insights. We align ourselves with the statement of the representative of the Philippines on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Malaysia firmly believes that this debate is both timely and essential, particularly in the light of recent events that starkly demonstrate the concerning trend of disregarding the rule of law, with impunity. Today we are witnessing blatant acts that erode the very foundations of international law, foundations that we, the international community, have painstakingly built and upheld over decades. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and its systematic atrocities against the Palestinian people, which are brazen violations of international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law, are clear examples. In addition, we have been witnessing increasing violations of international law and the sidelining of the United Nations through unilateral actions and the detestable flexing of power. Could we be at the onset of a dangerous breakdown of the international world order based on international law and regressing into a world in which only might is right? The United Nations was established with a clear mandate to maintain international peace and security, to prevent conflict and to uphold international law. Yet this mandate remains severely constrained, particularly within the Security Council in which the repeated use of the veto or the threat thereof by permanent members has undermined its effectiveness and, consequently, the credibility of the United Nations. Malaysia, therefore, reiterates that upholding the rule of law within the United Nations system must begin with meaningful institutional reform, especially of the Security Council. Persistent concerns relating to accountability, transparency and equitable representation demonstrate the urgent need to align United Nations structures with contemporary global realities. Malaysia maintains its long-standing position that reform of the Security Council is no longer optional but an absolute necessity. While immediate measures to regulate the use of the veto are necessary, Malaysia firmly believes that the veto has no place in a modern, democratic, multilateral system and should, ultimately, be abolished. Such reform is essential to restore confidence in the international legal order and to prevent its further erosion. It is the only way to ensure equality of all sovereign States before the law. In conclusion, Malaysia reaffirms its unwavering commitment to strengthening the rule of law, upholding human rights and advancing justice at both the national and international levels.

I now give the floor to the representative of Chile.

We thank Somalia for convening this high-level debate at a time at which the erosion of the international rule of law threatens not only peace and security, but also confidence in multilateralism. We also thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf and Mr. Abdulqawi Yusuf for their participation. Chile agrees that reaffirming the rule of law among nations is essential to preserving a rules-based, equitable and legitimate international order. Chile considers it a priority to develop preventive and cooperative strategies, both at the regional and global levels, that enable threats to the rule of law to be anticipated before they escalate into conflict. This requires durable frameworks for collaboration between the United Nations and regional organizations, based on effective diplomacy, the exchange of early information and the strengthening of institutional capacities, in particular in regions affected by historical legacies of inequality and institutional fragility. In this regard, the Security Council and the United Nations system as a whole must act with greater coherence and predictability to prevent the erosion of international law. This entails a firm commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law and the rejection of all forms of impunity. The Council must strengthen its preventive role and ensure that its decisions and mandates are implemented consistently, without double standards. Chile underscores the importance of actively promoting negotiation, mediation, arbitration and judicial settlement, as well as strengthening recourse to regional mechanisms. The African experience, marked by an increasing use of regional and international judicial bodies, demonstrates that law can and must replace the use of force as an instrument of international relations. In this context, it is essential to make fuller use of the tools already enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those aimed at the peaceful settlement of disputes. These provisions, designed to prevent the escalation of conflicts and to strengthen the rule of law among nations, remain essential yet are still insufficiently utilized. Advancing the rule of law among nations requires improved coordination among the various organs of the United Nations. Political, technical and resource- related barriers persist, hindering coherent action. Overcoming them requires pragmatic reforms, greater alignment between peace, development and human rights and the allocation of resources that reflect these priorities. Effective cooperation among the Security Council, the General Assembly and specialized bodies is key to maximizing impact and legitimacy. Finally, Chile reaffirms its commitment to people-centred multilateralism based on international law and oriented towards peace. Reaffirming the rule of law is not merely a legal obligation, but also a collective responsibility to ensure dignity, justice and security for present and future generations.

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