S/PV.9079 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, the Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Sudan, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic and Thailand to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Ms. Loraine Sievers, Director, Security Council Procedure and co-author of The Procedure of the UN Security Council; and Ms. Karin Landgren, Executive Director, Security Council Report. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2022/499, which contains the text of a letter dated 21 June 2022 from the Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. I now give the floor to Ms. Sievers. Ms. Sievers: I appreciate the invitation to participate in today’s open debate. As pointed out in the concept note (S/2022/499, annex), this meeting is taking place at a time when geopolitical challenges have led to heightened levels of fragmentation within the Security Council. Those challenges have placed the Council under intense scrutiny within the Organization, but also among the media, academic circles, civil society groups and the wider public. And that scrutiny has extended not only to the Council’s substantive work, but to its methodologies and tools as well. In particular, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led large numbers of people to open the Charter of the United Nations and read what the powers of the Security Council actually are. That is, of course, a positive development. All of us should read the Charter more often, and more closely, than we do. But some of the resulting proposals highlight the fact that the Security Council of today faces two different problems of transparency. The first is the one with which we are all acquainted. It is the issue of how much of its proceedings the Council conducts in a visible, public way and how much of its work is conducted in private. And it is the present Council members who have full control over how to strike that balance between public and private. But the second problem of transparency is not of the 2022 Security Council’s making. Rather, it is an inherited problem. It stems from the fact that the Security Council, over its 76-year history, has developed a highly complex body of precedent and interpretation with regard to applicable Charter articles and procedure. There are now, for example, six International Court of Justice advisory opinions with direct bearing on how the Council operates. In addition, as the concept note for this debate indicates, since 2017 the Council has adopted 14 presidential notes on working methods, which together comprise 168 operative paragraphs. And then there are the countless modalities, such as putting a draft resolution into blue, which have never been put into writing. That complicated context within which the Council functions is largely unknown. And that can mean that, even when the Council is conducting its business in plain view, how it works is often not fully understood. So today I would like to comment on four Council tools that I believe could be beneficially expanded to address this situation. First, I consider it a very positive development that the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions  — chaired this year by Albania  — has decided to begin issuing annual reports, as is done by the Council’s other thematic working groups. At present, the IWG is mainly known for negotiating presidential notes on working methods, but its contribution is far broader. It also considers significant working-method issues that do not result in presidential notes and monitors implementation of existing notes. The IWG annual reports will therefore be useful in bringing into public view this wider scope of Council members’ efforts to improve working methods. I would suggest that Council members consider also including in the IWG reports an indication of any important procedural matters that occur over the year in the Security Council itself, such as procedural votes or formulation of new agenda items. During General Assembly debates on the Council’s annual report, some States have called for procedural developments to be covered in the report’s introduction. But because that suggestion has appeared to be impractical, the IWG report might provide a viable alternative. Secondly, I wish to voice support for proposals to make the Council’s monthly programme of work fully comprehensive. In its early years, the calendar indicated only Council activities published in the Journal of the United Nations, that is, formal meetings and closed consultations. But that criterion has eroded over time, with the calendar now including such unofficial activities as political coordinator meetings. I therefore believe that it is now justified to include in the calendar informal interactive dialogues, especially since these are a Council event chaired by the president. It is understood that Arria Formula meetings are not Council events, because they are convened by individual Council members without needing the support of the Council as a whole. But Arria Formula meetings have become an important part of how Council members interact with the wider United Nations membership, civil society and each other. And they are tracked on the Security Council website. Including Arria Formula metings on the calendar  — with a suitable explanation  — would give a more accurate picture of how members overall address matters relevant to the Council. I am aware that some Council members oppose including these other meetings in the calendar. But when those following the Council perceive that the information that it publishes on its own work programme is incomplete, they turn instead to other sources, and I believe this undercuts the Council’s credibility. A third way to throw more light on the Council’s working methods would be for each Council member to accord them greater coverage during their end-of- presidency wrap-up session. Finally, matters of procedure could be given more detailed attention in each monthly presidency assessment. And while on the subject of the assessments, I would like to offer an important clarification. These assessments were launched in 1997 by presidential note S/1997/451. The note states that the assessments are prepared by Council members “under their own responsibility” and “should not be considered as representing the views of the Council”. That the assessments are published in national capacity was clearly understood during the first 18 years of implementing this note. With only two exceptions, there was a 100 per cent publication rate. But the situation changed dramatically in 2015 when some Council members, apparently unaware of the presidential note, contended that assessments must be agreed by consensus. With the advent of this misunderstanding, the fulfilment rate plummeted. Only 3 out of 12 assessments were published in 2016, and it has been a struggle ever since. Today I appeal to all present Council members to return to the letter and spirit of the 1997 presidential note, so that publication can return to 100 per cent. I realize battle lines can be drawn within the Council even over such relatively small measures. But taking steps such as these can represent an acknowledgment that the Council’s working methods do make this body hard to follow and can also signal a willingness to address this problem. Why is this important? The Security Council cannot succeed on its own. As we pointed out in the “Concluding reflections” chapter of our book, it is important to keep in mind that the end goal of the Council is to adopt effective decisions that are effectively implemented. And, effective implementation requires not merely the acquiescence of States Members of the United Nations, but their active engagement. Although many factors determine the level of Member States’ support for Council decisions, when opacity seems to surround how the Council works, this can add to a sense of mistrust, and even illegitimacy. On the other hand, even in divisive times such as these, if the Council is seen as making a good faith effort to give clarity to its working methods, this can help foster a more cooperative partnership with the wider membership.

I thank Ms. Sievers for her briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Landgren. Ms. Landgren: I thank you, Mr. President, for inviting Security Council Report (SCR) to address the Security Council in its open debate on working methods for the fifth year. Our appreciation goes to Albania and Ambassador Ferit Hoxha as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and to all the elected Council members that have energetically fulfilled that role in decades past. In 2022, the Security Council may be the object of greater critical global focus than ever in living memory. Tough questions about the Council nonetheless reflect expectations that its members will act effectively to defend the Charter of the United Nations and to prevent and respond to violations. Such questions also go to the heart of SCR’s mission as an independent, impartial think tank seeking to help to advance the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of the Security Council. I thank Council members, other Member States, colleagues within the United Nations and our counterparts in civil society, without whom SCR could not work as it does. In this regard, SCR acknowledges with deep gratitude Ms. Hasmik Egian, newly retired after six years as the Director of the Security Council Affairs Division of the United Nations Secretariat (SCAD), and we add our appreciation to all SCAD colleagues for their dedicated work. I also acknowledge Ms. Loraine Sievers for her work in this field. As the founders of the United Nations knew, peace is to be made among adversaries, not among friends. Working methods may offer some bridging elements in today’s difficult context when used in ways that boost trust, build knowledge and broaden ownership. Broadening ownership of the Security Council’s work can also enhance the Council’s legitimacy. In the past year, the Council has grappled with crises that include the war in Ukraine and upheaval in Afghanistan, Haiti and a number of countries in Africa, and there have been significant steps towards broadening Member States’ ownership of and engagement with international peace and security. Resolution 2623 (2022), referring the situation in Ukraine to the General Assembly, the Council’s first “uniting for peace” resolution in four decades, was followed by General Assembly resolution 76/262, stipulating that it will meet following any veto that is cast in the Council. These initiatives recognize the role of ownership by the wider United Nations membership in situations where the Council is deadlocked and also respond to a 2005 World Summit recommendation that the Council continue to adapt its working methods so as to increase the involvement of States that are not members of the Council in its work. It is too early to predict how this initiative will evolve, but how best to broaden ownership leads me to reflections on Council penholding, a term that does not fully convey its demanding nature of drafting, convening discussions and negotiating outcomes. Elected members share the pen on Afghanistan and the Syria humanitarian file, among others. But there was a real breakthrough in 2019 through co-penholding between a permanent member and an elected member, when Germany and the United Kingdom shared the pen on Darfur and on Libya sanctions — particularly significant as Germany also chaired the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1970 (2011) concerning Libya. Germany and the United Kingdom set an important precedent. Today the United States shares the pen with Mexico on Haiti and with Albania on Ukraine. Pen-sharing among permanent and elected members broadens ownership, builds knowledge and can contribute to more coherent Council strategies for peace, particularly when the co-pen is the chair of a relevant subsidiary body or otherwise brings in an added perspective such as regional expertise. But currently there is no shared penholding with any sanctions committee chair  — individuals who follow developments in their country situations closely and are likely to have valuable insights to contribute to Council penholding. In respect of boosting trust, Council visiting missions offer a chance for members to engage with one another less formally, as well as to be exposed, together, to facts on the ground. Pre-coronavirus disease, the Council undertook four or five visiting missions a year. With travel again becoming more feasible, it is worth recalling the impact of visiting missions. Security Council Report witnessed and reported on Council members’ reactions during their visit to the Lake Chad basin in March 2017, which produced resolution 2349 (2017) addressing the negative security, humanitarian and environmental dimensions of the Boko Haram crisis in the region. Council visiting missions to Colombia in May 2017 and July 2019 signalled the Council’s political support for the implementation of the 2016 Final Peace Agreement. With a growing focus on the role of regional and subregional organizations in addressing ongoing or emerging conflict within their regions, the Council might also prioritize visits to engage with them on conflict prevention in particular. There are other ways of stepping up engagement with the field: virtually, such as Council members’ recent encounters with Colombia and Yemen via virtual reality headsets, a modality still in its infancy and with considerable scope for development, and mini-missions, which at an earlier time gave the Council flexibility for speedy and direct engagement when needed. A practical suggestion here would be that the Council adopt a more systematic way of deciding on visiting missions. One possibility would be to have the Informal Working Group, at the start of the year, consult and select three possible situations that could benefit from a Council visit, which could then be supplemented by other trips. A systematic approach to Council travel should build in field trips by subsidiary body Chairs as a way of enhancing joined-up strategies at a time when sanctions have become such a contested instrument despite being one of the rare concrete means that the Council uses to influence State actions that violate the Charter of the United Nations. The Council continues to show that it has a range of tools. While those will never compensate for the political will needed to respect the Charter, working methods are a day-to-day way for every Council member — and potentially every Member State — to see this institution performing as best it can in response to a dangerous, inequitable and fast-changing world.

I thank Ms. Landgren for her briefing. I would like to draw the attention of speakers to paragraph 22 of presidential note S/2017/507, which encourages all participants in Council meetings to deliver their statements in five minutes or less, in line with the Security Council’s commitment to making more effective use of open meetings. I shall now give the floor to those Council members wishing to make statements.

At the outset, we would like to thank the briefers, Ms. Karin Landgren and Ms. Loraine Sievers, for their thorough briefings. We also thank Mr. Ferit Hoxha for his leadership of the work of the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and for having organized today’s events. We are confident that this will help enrich the work of the Group with new ideas — of course, with the understanding that the working methods themselves and any steps to modify them are the preserve of the Council itself. The Russian Federation has consistently supported the Security Council discussing this subject in the open format with the participation of all interested States Members of the United Nations. We see this now years-old discussion as an opportunity to increase the Security Council’s coordination with a broad number of Member States. Many of the ideas that were expressed during these discussions were later included in presidential note S/2017/507, which is vitally important as a compendium of the Security Council’s working practice and which is actively used by non-permanent members as a serious primary source of information. At the same time, we believe that any reforms must be focused on a genuine increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council’s implementation of its primary functions of maintaining international peace and security. Restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic had an impact on the Security Council’s work. However, despite those difficulties, the Security Council was able to rapidly adapt to new realities. Special temporary measures allowed it to carry out its work without interruption. Yet the situation once again convinced us that there can be no alternative to in-person discussions and personal interaction among Security Council members, and we ae pleased to have returned to our normal way of working. I should like to take this opportunity to once again underscore the fact that we do not see any need to institutionalize those temporary measures. If such a crisis is repeated, we have a way of acting that is laid out in letters of Security Council Presidents, which can always be turned to. The traditional discussion of the Security Council’s working methods cannot be divorced from the substantive problems that exist in the Council’s action, which are particularly evident of late. Therefore, we cannot avoid a comprehensive and complex discussion here, just as cosmetic adjustments will not be enough. The practice of individual members using the Council to serve their narrow national interests or to expand the Council’s agenda through domestic, political, human rights, climate or other questions has recently increased from a trickle to a flood. Yet that absolutely ignores the fact that not only is the Security Council, under the Charter of the United Nations, not supposed to deal with those subjects, but also that it cannot help with the resolution of those problems. It is unfortunately glaringly obvious that the main aim of those efforts is to put pressure on disfavoured countries. Often the real reasons that led to the emergence of a particular conflict are intentionally hushed up and swept under the carpet. United Nations missions, including peacekeeping operations, are given functions that are not appropriate for them and that they cannot effectively implement. That leads to an increase in mistrust regarding their impartiality and effectiveness. We are also seeing attempts to shift responsibility for crises that emerge onto someone else. A clear example is the Council’s consideration of the situation in Afghanistan, when the consideration of a complex problem is intentionally narrowed down to simply a discussion of human rights. Yet the economic collapse and humanitarian disaster provoked by the United States of America and its allies is hypocritically left out of the discussion. We note the approach of Western colleagues to shift discussions onto a different track if the question does not correspond to their interests. A clear example is the discussion on reviewing and lifting sanctions from countries where restrictive measures no longer correspond to the current situation. Despite the fact that the reasons for which the sanctions were introduced are no longer present, new reasons are being found again and again to keep those sanctions in force. And instead of a presumption of innocence, Governments are forced time and again to prove that the accusations made against them are baseless. It is no longer possible to hide the fact that, in the case of the Central African Republic, South Sudan and the Sudan, sanctions are being extended with the sole purpose of maintaining external pressure on them. We note with regret the Council’s increasing lack of ability to engage in constructive debate and negotiation. Instead of finding solutions to complex problems, which, indeed, takes both time and a willingness to compromise, Western countries often take the easiest path. They encourage the use of the veto or abstentions on documents. Recent examples include the North Korean dossier, when the decoupling that we proposed with our Chinese colleagues, which would have allowed a consensus Council document to be adopted, was rejected. I note that the issue of the veto does not fall under the category of working methods, but it is the linchpin of the entire Security Council architecture and the key to achieving balanced outcomes in the Council. But that does not negate the need for working methods and approaches that are conducive to compromise. It is necessary to strive to negotiate, listen to and hear other fellow colleagues. On the contrary, indirect accusations, sabotage, diktats and manipulation are used. In some cases, for example, regarding Ukraine, it has even reached the point of absurdity. The Security Council has become an arena for Western countries to articulate fakes and propagandistic rhetoric. Moreover, the opinion of the West is presented in absolutes as the only correct one. Such a destructive trend only further divides the members of the Council. Against that backdrop, the issue of informal penholdership on certain dossiers is becoming increasingly critical. Currently, only three delegations act as penholders on most issues. Despite their long- lost national status, they consider themselves regional experts and patronize other States or even regions. The views of the host country, regional actors, which are often more familiar with the situation on the ground, and sometimes even representatives of the United Nations Secretariat are completely ignored. A clear example of misuse of the penholder role is the procedure for negotiating Security Council resolutions. The work is often carried out within an impossible time frame that does not allow for a comprehensive expert review of the documents. At the same time, countries that disagree with such an approach are subjected to unprecedented pressure. As a result, we have crude documents that do not take the concerns of the Security Council members into account and provide the Secretariat with unclear mandates. That approach is not conducive to the effective resolution of conflicts. In that regard, we would particularly like to highlight the delegation of the United Kingdom and its clearly biased handling of the Yemen and Libya dossiers. In particular, we note that the draft presidential statement prepared by Russia outlining the common position of the Security Council members in support of the stability and sustainability of the political transition in Libya caused an inexplicable outburst of anger among the British informal penholders. We have consistently advocated expanding the pool of stakeholders, primarily by including non-permanent members. We are guided by the premise enshrined in the note by the President of the Security Council S/2017/507 that any member of the Council may be a penholder and more than one Council member may act as co-penholders. Revisiting the issue of informal penholdership would help to improve the effectiveness of the Security Council. We will continue to raise this issue in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We continue to draw attention to the backlog of the Council’s documentation flow. The Security Council produces several hundred documents each year. Unfortunately, the value added of some of them is questionable. The excessive micromanagement of draft resolutions often observed is not helpful either. We are convinced that the final products of the Security Council should be concise, clear, understandable and, most important, action-oriented. In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not mention the frequently raised issue of the number of open and closed meetings of the Security Council. Russia has consistently advocated maintaining a balance between the two. In that context, we can see that some Council members, while ostensibly advocating maximum transparency in the discussion of individual country- specific issues, in fact use them purely for propaganda shows, preferring to consider sensitive or awkward topics behind closed doors.

Ireland is pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of the 10 elected members of the Security Council (E10). I want to begin by thanking Albania, as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for organizing this important debate. I also want to thank our briefers, Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Karin Landgren, for their valuable and important insights and recommendations. Working methods are not an end in themselves. As elected members, we seek to improve the way in which the Council operates because we share a common goal — a more effective Security Council. We want the Council to be more efficient in tackling the complex and interconnected threats to peace and security that we collectively face. As elected members, we understand and respect our responsibilities and obligations, entrusted to us through our election by the General Assembly. We therefore want the Council to operate in a way that maximizes its legitimacy. That means making it as representative, inclusive, transparent, effective and accountable as possible, in accordance with its mandate. Let us be clear: a more accountable and transparent Council would be better placed to meet its core tasks of preventing and resolving conflicts. It is with that in mind that we, the 10 elected members of the Security Council, approach the issue of working methods. To achieve that goal, the E10 would like to make several points and suggestions. First, we believe that the Council should strengthen its engagement with the wider United Nations membership. That means more transparency in how we operate. It also means more opportunities for the members of the General Assembly, on behalf of whom the Security Council acts, to interact with the work of the Council, while preserving the various tools at the command of the Security Council to ensure its effectiveness. We believe that the coordination, cooperation and interaction between the Security Council and the principal organs of the United Nations can be improved. That is especially true for the Peacebuilding Commission, which can offer valuable advice and cross-cutting perspectives in support of the Security Council’s work. Its Chairs should be invited to brief the Council whenever possible. The monthly presidency also has an important role to play in that engagement. The organization of briefings on the programme of work to Member States, the media and civil society are useful tools. We also encourage the holding of interactive monthly wrap-up sessions, and we welcome that that has become standard practice across Council presidencies. Monthly assessments, prepared under the authority of each presidency, constitute useful records of the Council’s action and sometimes, regrettably, inaction. Those assessments should be timely, and they should be frank. They should analyse and assess our work. Member States, civil society and academia should be able to consult such documents and find accurate reflections of the realities of the Security Council, rather than lists of meetings. Monthly working methods commitments have been published by 10 members of the Council in the past year. We see that growing practice as a step in the right direction  — a step towards the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council S/2017/507 and the 13 presidential notes adopted since the latest iteration of presidential note S/2017/507 and a step towards greater transparency and accountability. We call on all future Council presidencies to formulate, circulate and implement monthly working methods commitments. Elected members bring fresh perspectives and ideas to the work of the Council. In recent years, the E10 has actively sought to innovate and improve the Council’s working methods. For example, the joint working methods commitments of the three African members of the Security Council  — Kenya, the Niger and Tunisia — as well as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 2021 provided a useful blueprint and paved the way for subsequent joint working methods commitments, such as those adopted by the European Union Council members last year. We will continue to innovate, and we call on all members, both current and incoming, to do the same. A transparent Council should not come at the expense of an efficient and effective Council. This is not a zero-sum game. The Council needs to strike a healthy balance between public and private meetings in order to enhance the transparency and visibility of its work and encourage more interactivity of discussions and consensus-building. We also believe that the transparency and accountability of the Council can be enhanced with regard to the documentation addressed to it by Member States. Related to that is the need for the improved provision of information and Council documentation, both past and current, to E10 members. An effective Council is an agile Council that learns from past experiences and prepares for future disruptions. We underline the importance of recording the best practices and lessons learned from the working methods instituted by the Council during the coronavirus disease pandemic. Secondly, we believe that it is critical that a gender lens be integrated across the working methods of the Security Council. We are happy to note that we have seen important progress over the past year, including, but not limited to, the shared women and peace and security commitments adopted by some Council members. Together, we have ensured a continuous and necessary focus on gender equality throughout the work of the Council. We cannot compromise on the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in the work of the Council. In that regard, we encourage all presidencies to strive for gender balance and diversity when selecting briefers. We must ensure that women are at the table and their voices are heard and heeded. The E10 is also actively engaging in discussions in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, under the leadership of Albania, on a draft presidential note on the issue. Thirdly, targeted sanctions by the Security Council are an important tool to address threats to international peace and security. They are therefore critical to the execution of its mandate. The E10 underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in the work of sanctions committees. Their working methods should be aligned with international due process standards. We strongly believe in the need to increase the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions by strengthening fair and clear procedures in United Nations sanctions regimes, including by creating review mechanisms similar to that of the Ombudsperson for the sanctions regime of the Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015), concerning the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities. The Council should strive to ensure that its resolutions are clear and focused. As conflicts evolve, so too should our collective responses. The Council should take into account the efficacy of sanctions through the evolving phases of conflicts. In doing so, it should also ensure that sanctions do not have adverse humanitarian consequences for civilian populations or adversely affect humanitarian activities carried out by humanitarian organizations. We also believe that the chairs of sanctions committees should be more involved in the initial consultations on sanctions renewals led by the penholders. With respect to the working methods of subsidiary bodies, including sanctions committees, a transparent, open and evidence-based methodology needs to be followed. Any agenda item being introduced for consideration and any holds placed on listing requests or other matters of the Committees’ business need to be supported in writing. They should be accompanied with the necessary justification by the requesting member of the Committee concerned in order to promote transparency and accountability and ensure efficient record-keeping. That would help ensure the credibility of the work of the Committees and, in turn, the Council. In addition, listing and delisting individuals and entities under United Nations sanctions regimes should be objective and evidence-based. The E10 members underscore the critical and urgent need for comprehensive Security Council reform so that the Council reflects contemporary realities. While the Council needs to be more efficient, representative, transparent, accountable and democratic, it continues to lack a truly representative composition. Since the last working methods debate (see S/PV.8798), the Council has failed to adopt three draft resolutions owing to the use of the veto. The use or threat of use of the veto may prevent the Council from acting on vital topics. The E10 calls for restraint on the use of the veto, especially on actions aimed at preventing the most serious crimes of international concern — the very heart of the Council’s mandate. The E10 represents two thirds of the membership of the Council, and our united view is clear: the ideals of transparency, accountability, inclusivity and effectiveness would be better realized if the Council’s workload were more equally shared among all its members. That goes for the penholdership and co-penholdership arrangements, as well as the selection and chairing of subsidiary bodies. We call for the full implementation of presidential note S/2017/507 and subsequently adopted notes on the selection of the chairs of subsidiary bodies. The process should begin as soon as possible after the election of incoming Council members. The views of the incoming members concerning that allocation should not only be taken into account; they should be the determining and decisive factors. The expertise of elected members in certain areas should also be considered. Importantly, any consensus proposal by elected members should be respected. It is vital that the process be completed in a timely manner. That allows incoming members to better understand and closely monitor the work of the subsidiary bodies during the observation period beginning on 1 October. We regret that timeline has not been met in the past two years. In conclusion, earlier this month five new members of the Council were elected. The continued process of renewal, embodied by the 10 elected members of the Council, should provide the opportunity to reflect and improve the way in which we operate. The Charter of the United Nations is binding upon us all. Every State, including permanent members, must comply with its obligations. Our position is simple: if we are to live up the ideals of the Charter, even a Charter that does not change, the working methods of the Security Council need to evolve. In order to achieve that, and with the inputs of the broader membership, we need a renewed sense of urgency and shared purpose, individually and collectively, around this table. We, the 10 elected members of the Security Council, speak with one voice to reaffirm our commitment today to live up to the responsibility bestowed upon us through our election by the States Members of the United Nations to do just that: to work together towards a more effective, transparent, inclusive and representative Council for all.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important annual debate. We express our appreciation to you for leading the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also thank today’s briefers. We express our appreciation to Ms. Landgren for the Security Council Report, which is a valuable resource for watchers of the Security Council, and to Ms. Sievers, who literally wrote the book on the Security Council’s procedure, which continues to be a vital resource for all of us. We greatly appreciate and value the work of the Informal Working Group. We appreciate your focus, Sir, as Chair of the Informal Working Group, on the implementation of presidential note S/2017/507, the essential guide to and codification of the practice of the Security Council. Note 507 and related notes subsequently adopted by the Council were the product of years of practice and negotiations. By and large, most of the tools to improve the Council’s working methods are already included in note 507. It is simply a question of our collective will and dedication to implement its provisions. We have been pleased by the progress made by the Council in including more civil society briefers in its work. It is also particularly noteworthy that the Council has improved the gender balance of its civil society briefers. In order to ensure that the Security Council takes full account of all perspectives when deliberating on the situations before it, it is vital that all voices be brought to the Security Council table. In response to the coronavirus disease pandemic, the Council has been able to fulfil its mandate under Article 28 of the Charter of the Nations and function continuously. Despite the inability to convene in-person meetings, the Council adopted its draft resolutions through a virtual correspondence process. The United States continues to believe that the virtual gatherings held by the Council should be deemed formal meetings of the Security Council, under the provisional rules of procedure, so that it can adopt draft resolutions at virtual meetings. As the pandemic wanes, we believe that it would be useful for the Security Council to develop a preparedness plan for how to proceed in the event of future emergencies. It is generally better to be prepared for the future through a well-considered deliberative process, rather than to have to scramble in reaction to a crisis at short notice. We recognize the great responsibility that the United States bears as a permanent member of the Security Council. We do not take that status for granted. As a permanent member, the perspective of the United States on the working methods of the Council is based on more than 76 years of experience. We have the vantage point of a long view. Each time there is a proposal to adjust the Council’s working methods, we are in a position to evaluate its long-term institutional implications. We balance the clarity of hard-and-fast rules with the need for flexibility and adaptability to the circumstances. We are aware that there is always room for improvement and that the Council can ever strive towards greater effectiveness, efficiency and transparency, while taking into account that many of its working methods have stood the test of time and are in place for good reason. We commit to continuing to roll up our sleeves and working to improve the Council’s working methods through the Informal Working Group. On the subject of the veto, the General Assembly recently adopted resolution 76/262, which mandates the convening of a General Assembly meeting every time a veto is cast in the Security Council. The United States was proud to co-sponsor that innovative resolution. The General Assembly recently held its first meeting pursuant to that resolution after the double veto of the draft resolution that the United States had proposed in response to the ballistic missiles launched by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. While the United States was deeply disappointed that vetoes prevented that draft resolution from being adopted, it was pleased to see the smooth implementation of resolution 76/262. The Council was able to reach consensus on a fact-based special report to the General Assembly at the General Assembly’s invitation. The General Assembly meeting provided an opportunity for those casting a veto to explain themselves and for the States Members of the United Nations to react to the veto. We noted that almost 80 Member States participated in the debate. We also observed that the convening of a General Assembly meeting does not necessarily mean that the General Assembly needs to adopt a resolution on the subject of the vetoed draft resolution. All in all, resolution 76/262 demonstrated a healthy balance between the Security Council and the General Assembly. I wish to conclude my statement by recognizing some unsung heroes. We deeply value the behind- the-scenes work of the Security Council Affairs Division (SCAD), which provides the institutional memory and operational legwork of the Security Council. It is through SCAD’s unseen work that the transition from presidency to presidency, month after month, goes so smoothly and seamlessly. I do not want to neglect to mention the rest of the Secretariat staff, such as the interpreters, who are right now interpreting these very words into the other five official languages of the United Nations, and the Conference Services staff, who ensure that we are able to physically meet in the Chamber today. Each Security Council meeting is the outcome of a collective effort by many people, from permanent representatives to political coordinators to Secretariat staff, all working in solidarity towards a common end — the maintenance of international peace and security. Ultimately , that is what the working methods of the Council are all about.

I would like to thank Albania, as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for its excellent stewardship of this important topic. I also thank our briefers for their reflections on the Security Council’s working methods. As we emerge from the virtual working methods introduced in response to the coronavirus disease pandemic, it is welcome that we are back to full participation in open debates, such this one today, in order to remain connected with the wider United Nations membership. I agree with my Russian colleague, my colleague of the United States and others, who say that we truly value in-person meetings, although we managed well through the period of virtual working methods. Still, we have more to do to ensure that the Council stays effective and efficient. Our vision remains that the Council should be able to solve problems through interactive debate, consensus-building, responsible penholdership and decision-making that has real impact on the ground. Sometimes that means discussion in private, not in public. We look forward to a full return to the Consultations Room. With regard to penholding, there is a long-standing convention of penholding to support consistency. However, as we have seen and heard and as Ms. Sievers said, it is a flexible practice that we, the United Kingdom, have shared with Germany on the United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in the Sudan and now share with Gabon on the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa. It means being responsive to prevent conflict or deter escalation and discussing issues even if that is uncomfortable for some. All Council members have a responsibility to uphold the Charter of the United Nations. General Assembly resolution 76/262, on the veto, which we co-sponsored, is a welcome step towards ensuring transparency and accountability when a member of the Council blocks action to maintain international peace and security, for example, as we heard and saw with respect to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We also need to do more to ensure that we use the Council’s time efficiently. That means respecting the Council’s mandate and not using it as a platform for propaganda and misinformation. Sadly, Russia has done just that consistently since its illegal invasion of Ukraine. It still denies there is a war, even as its missiles continue to rain down on civilian targets. With respect to the Russian Federation’s allegations about our penholding on Libya, I made clear in the Council yesterday (see S/PV.9078) our national position, which is shared by many others, that the withdrawal of the Wagner Group mercenaries is an essential part of making progress in Libya. With regard to Yemen, I simply note that it is one file on which we have made progress since the start of the year. Thanks to the work of the members of the Council, the countries of the region and the United Nations, the hard-won truce is holding. If we are discussing procedure today, we should look at the founding rules of the United Nations. Regrettably, the real challenge for the functioning of the Council is that a permanent member has torn up the United Nations Charter and invaded a sovereign neighbour. The global impacts are profound and affect many of the issues of which the Council is seized. I am sure we will hear from Member States today about their concerns about divisions in the Council. It will not be adjusted working methods that resolve them, but an end to Russia’s illegal war.

It is my privilege to deliver this statement on behalf of India and Brazil at today’s open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. First, we would like to thank the representative of Ireland for the statement she delivered on behalf of the 10 elected members of the Security Council (E10), which we fully endorse and support. We would also like to thank Albania for organizing today’s important debate. This is an issue of interest and importance to the entire membership of the United Nations, particularly during the current extraordinary circumstances, when the world looks to the Security Council for solutions and leadership. I also thank the briefers for their useful insights into the topic. The statement made on behalf of the E10 summarizes our main concerns on the need to strengthen the working methods of the Security Council. We underscore the need for the fair distribution of responsibilities between elected and permanent members. The selection of Chairs of subsidiary bodies and the distribution of penholderships must be open, transparent, based on exhaustive consultations and informed by a more integrated perspective. That is one of the best ways to enhance the decision-making process. There are items on the agenda of the Security Council on which discussion has not been held since the creation of the United Nations. There is a case for beginning a discussion into the review of items on the list of matters of which the Council is seized in a realistic and forward-looking manner and presidential note S/2017/507 provides ample guidance on that. While there have been some important improvements on working methods, Brazil and India take this opportunity to reiterate that the problems afflicting the Security Council go much deeper than just its working methods. Improving the working methods of the Council will never be enough to correct its fundamental problem, which stems from its lack of representativeness. It is our firm belief, therefore, that any debate on the working methods of the Security Council must have the issue of Security Council reform as its overarching framework. There is an urgent need for comprehensive reforms of the Council, including its size and composition. It is a political goal of the highest order, as evidenced in the statements delivered by our own leaders, year after year, during the high-level week of the General Assembly. How can we sit here ignoring those calls? A more representative, effective and legitimate Security Council is a pivotal component of a reformed multilateral system. We need a Security Council that better reflects the geographical and developmental diversity of the United Nations today, where the voices of developing countries and underrepresented regions, including Africa, Latin America and the vast majority of Asia and the Pacific, find their due place at the table. For that, an expansion of the Council in both categories of membership is absolutely essential. That is the only way in which to bring the Council’s composition and decision-making dynamics in line with contemporary geopolitical realities. We can no longer hide behind the smokescreen of the intergovernmental negotiations in the General Assembly and pay lip service to the much larger and pressing issue of Council reform. If countries are truly interested in making the Council more accountable and more credible, we call on them to come out openly and support a clear pathway to achieve that reform, in a time-bound manner, through the only established process at the United Nations, namely, by engaging in text-based negotiations, not speaking at or past one other as we have done for the past three decades. As the threats to international peace and security evolve, so must the Council. We ask those blocking progress on this vital issue to heed the calls for genuine reform and contribute to making the Council truly fit for purpose for the twenty-first century.

China thanks the Executive Director of Security Council Report, Ms. Karin Landgren, and the Director of Security Council Procedure, Ms. Loraine Sievers, for their briefings. I also thank those non-Council members present for their interest and active participation in this meeting. Working methods are vital to the effective discharge of the Council’s duties. They are highly political and have never been — and never will be — mere technicalities. Given the rapidly shifting international political landscape and evolving security risks, as well as all scientific and technological advances and improving conditions in the physical world, it is imperative that the Council improve its working methods in order to keep up with changing circumstances, enhance its capacity and efficiency and better fulfil its mandate. At the centre of the Council’s myriad working methods lies the core principle of solidarity and unity. Members of the Council must always bear in mind that our sole agenda is the common agenda of international peace and security, to which there is no alternative. However multifarious and complicated the challenges confronting us, standing together in solidarity and unity for the maintenance of international peace and security is always our primary responsibility. The Council must remain committed to promoting the political resolution of hotspot issues while working more strenuously at the diplomatic level for good offices and mediation to actively push for negotiations and dialogue and to dissolve tensions. Council members should demonstrate mutual respect, consult one another fully and accommodate one another’s concerns as far as possible while refraining from deliberately intensifying tensions and divergences, not to mention artificially creating division and confrontation. The Security Council belongs to all Member States. It should listen to wide-ranging views in the course of its work, taking the concerns of States and regional organizations seriously and striving to work in greater coordination and synergy with the President of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. In recent years, the Security Council has been actively exploring ways to improve its working methods and enhance its efficiency, with many positive outcomes. It is worth mentioning in particular that, at the height of the coronavirus disease pandemic, the Council made timely adjustments in its working methods to ensure its normal functioning. With regard some of the more salient issues that persist in the Council’s work, China wishes to make the following points so that we can discuss them here in the Chamber. First, the Council has seen a steady increase in the number of emerging issues and a continuous proliferation of cross-cutting issues, some of which are clearly beyond its core mandate. The Council should focus on the major pressing issues that threaten international peace and security and avoid taking on new topics without due consideration, which does not produce the desired effects while taking up too much of its resources. On cross-cutting issues, there should be a reasonable division of labour with other bodies to avoid overlapping and redundancy. The issues on the Council’s agenda and arrangements for deliberations should be adjusted as and when the situation on the ground changes. For example, the Council currently meets on the Syrian dossier three times a month, which is unnecessary in the light of the reality on the ground. We propose either reducing the frequency of deliberations or combining the different tracks, which would help us approach the Syrian dossier from a more holistic perspective and render the Council’s work more efficient. Secondly, there is a need for better management of Arria Formula meetings. The original purpose of the Arria Formula was to provide Council members with an opportunity to learn more about the issues on its agenda and exchange views thereon in an informal setting so as to enhance and broaden consensus. In recent years, however, the pattern of Arria Formula meetings has deviated from that original intent. A total of 32 Arria Formula meetings took place last year. As well as hogging many delegations’ finite resources, those meetings, due to the way in which they were organized, barely achieved the purpose of enhancing information-sharing and promoting mutual understanding. Some meetings are merely a breeding ground for quarrels. We call on all members to exercise restraint and encourage the Council presidency to demonstrate good leadership in steering Arria Formula arrangements onto a more rational track. Thirdly, with regard to the penholders or co-penholders for each agenda item, we wish to stress that penholderships are an informal arrangement that is supposed to reflect shared responsibility and collective engagement. In practice, however, the penholderships on various issues have long been held by certain permanent members. On occasion, some penholders have placed their national positions above our collective organ, resulting in mounting controversies. We therefore advocate a systematic restructuring of the penholder arrangement. As a general principle, there should be two or three co-penholders per topic, to be shared between permanent and non-permanent members. The chairs of the subsidiary bodies should be invited to act as penholders for their mandated issues. Penholders should engage closely with the countries concerned, Council members and the competent departments of the Secretariat in order to maximize consensus, reduce differences and avert confrontation. Fourthly, it is important to strike a balance between increased transparency and credible confidentiality. In practice, it is not uncommon for the media or non-Council members to have access to draft documents even before Council members. In addition, when some members brief the media on the proceedings of closed consultations, they distort the positions of other members by quoting them out of context. While that is done to reflect transparency, in practice it seriously undermines Security Council consultations and affects their outcomes. It also erodes unity among Council members. We hope that all members will take that more seriously, because our work in the Security Council should be carried out in a serious and professional manner. We support the Security Council in inviting civil society representatives to participate in its meetings, and we hope that the monthly presidencies will strengthen the screening of invited representatives to ensure that they are genuinely well informed about the topics under consideration and that their positions are objective and impartial in order to facilitate the Security Council’s discussions and search for solutions. Fifthly, it is important to take a sensible approach to the question of Council sanctions. Sanctions are an important tool of the Security Council. However, they are only the means of achieving a political settlement. The Security Council must exercise restraint and control its impulse to resort to sanctions too readily. It should be prudent in terms of the intensity and scope of the sanctions it applies. To minimize collateral damage, sanctions measures should also be reviewed in a timely manner in order to adjust those that need to be adjusted and eliminate those that should be eliminated. Some Council members have referred in their statements to the issue of the veto power. I would like to point out that the exercise of the veto is a consequence of the inequitable composition of the Security Council and the division of Council members into camps. The unbalanced composition of this body inevitably leads to unfair decision-making. Many members of the Security Council belong to one particular political bloc. They pursue identical or very similar foreign policies and have great influence in political, economic, military and other spheres. To some extent, they even control the media. They exploit their numerical advantage to dominate the setting of the agenda of the Security Council, the designation of penholders and the drafting of documents. More often than not, they try to push through draft resolutions while avoiding the holding of full consultations, which results in the exercise of the veto. To address those problems, it is important to work on the root causes and allow more developing countries and countries that pursue independent policies to participate in the work of the Security Council. I would like to stress that independent countries must be brought into the Council in order for a decisive solution to be found to the Security Council’s lack of compositional equity and balance. Improving the working methods of the Security Council is a long-term process that must start now on the basis of specific measures and must involve every single Council member. I hope that the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions will play an important role in comprehensively sorting out all the proposals put forward at this meeting and actively push for follow-up work on their further development and implementation. China stands ready to effectively fulfil its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council and to work with all parties to draw on our experience and improve the working methods of the Security Council on an ongoing basis so that it can play a more effective role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

I thank Albania for organizing this open debate and for your effective presidency, Mr. President, of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. I also thank Ms. Sievers and Ms. Landgren for their analyses and recommendations. The Security Council and the entire multilateral system are facing major challenges, in particular the coronavirus disease pandemic and the consequences of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. To respond to those challenges, we need a Security Council that is focused on action and results. An effective Security Council means, above all, a reformed Council that is more authoritative and representative. France’s position on that issue is well known, and I will not go into detail. We remain mobilized with all our partners on that subject. Secondly, we must find the best balance between public diplomacy and work behind closed doors. Over the past few years, considerable progress has been made in terms of transparency. I welcome, for example, the publication and submission to the General Assembly on time of the annual report on the activities of the Security Council in 2021. That report shows that the Council held 240 public meetings and 124 consultations last year. Public meetings are useful because they allow for greater inclusivity by giving a voice to relevant Member States, as well as to civil society. The voices of women and young persons are also increasingly heard at those meetings, although there is still much to be done to achieve parity. However, we must ensure that there is sufficient space for confidential discussions and negotiations among Council members, as they allow us to adjust our positions and reach compromise. We need to spend less time reiterating our often-well-known positions and more time negotiating. Juxtaposing 15 national positions is not the objective. The current balance is not the one we need. The Security Council needs to regain the ability to make decisions. That is its role and the mandate assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations. It is primarily an executive body, not a forum for discussion. Similarly, informal Arria Formula meetings are essential, but today there are too many of them and they are sometimes misused. No fewer than five Arria Formula meetings have been scheduled for July. We must find a way to limit the number of meetings in that format and ensure that they are genuinely inclusive by systematically ensuring that interpretation is provided. Thirdly, the Council must be able to assume its responsibilities and address situations that may constitute threats to international peace and security. Regional organizations have an important role to play. That is defined in Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. But that does not mean that the Council should be relieved of its responsibilities. The Security Council has a wide variety of meeting formats and tools that enable it to make an irreplaceable contribution to the settlement of conflicts by taking into account regional specificities. It must therefore act whenever necessary. Finally, even the best working methods will never replace the spirit of responsibility and compromise that remains essential to finding solutions to crises. In that regard, the Security Council has been used on several occasions in recent months as a platform for disinformation. That misuse of the Council dangerously weakens its authority, and it must end. Responsibility also means respecting the prerogatives of the Secretary-General and not blocking the Secretary-General’s appointment proposals without good reason. That also applies in particular to the panels of experts of the sanctions committees. Responsibility also means that the permanent members must use the veto sensibly. The threat of using the veto at any time as a negotiating tool is not acceptable. All or nothing leads to paralysis and collective failure. In this respect, France, together with Mexico, is leading an initiative that proposes the voluntary and collective suspension of the use of the veto in the case of mass atrocities. It is already has the support of 106 Member States. We call on all Member States and in particular the permanent members to join it. Finally, together with Mexico, we are co-penholders on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine. We will continue to seek results on this and other issues in the Council. In conclusion, Mr. President, you can count on France to work towards a modern, inclusive and action-oriented Security Council.

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 Ecuador.

I thank Karin Landgren, Executive Director of Security Council Report, and Loraine Sievers, co-author of The Procedure of the UN Security Council for their briefings. I also acknowledge their contribution, analysis and development of tools to enhance the effectiveness of Council member delegations. I align myself with the statement to be made by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the 26 members of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, and congratulate Ireland on its statement on behalf of the 10 elected members of the Security Council, whose special contribution to the improvement of working methods is always commendable. As we meet in this Chamber after the full participation in this annual debate was restricted in 2020 and 2021 by exceptional health measures, I acknowledge the Council’s efforts aimed at ensuring the continuity of work in an inclusive manner, in accordance with rule 37 of its provisional rules of procedure. The subject of today’s debate encompasses one of the central issues of the United Nations, given that having effective working methods not only favours the vitality of the Security Council, but also the vitality of the United Nations as whole, and that depends, not on Charter reform, but on Charter implementation. Formulas for modernizing working methods should consider not only the flow of internal procedures and communications between Council members and the Council and its subsidiary bodies, but also between the Council and the other organs of the United Nations system and between its permanent and elected members and the rest of the Member States of the Organization. I insist on the need to deepen the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. With regard to the annual report to be submitted by the Security Council to the Assembly, I would reiterate all the recommendations that we made at the 9 June meeting, both in our national capacity and on behalf of the ACT group. The revitalization of the Security Council’s working methods will be reflected in a body capable of more effectively fulfilling its obligations to ensure international peace and security. We support the full implementation of presidential note S/2017/507 and all existing arrangements in this area, as well as their ongoing development and modernization. Discussions and meetings should be able to rely on a prior and solid base of information, including real statistics, projections and proposals for solutions, not just the general information provided in concept notes, which are certainly very useful, but also broad information that leads to operational results and avoids being limited to theoretical discussions. Without ignoring the fact that certain sensitive issues may require discretion and prudent reserve, that cannot be a pretext for institutionalizing secret diplomacy. The Security Council acts on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations pursuant to Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, but the counterpart of that representation is the obligation to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations. In conclusion, I stress the relevance of the Security Council’s working methods and corresponding notes in guiding and facilitating the preparatory work for delegations which, like mine, will occupy a non-permanent seat as of 1 January 2023, on the basis of which I pledge my delegation’s fullest support to making progress in the efforts promoted by today’s debate.

I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland.

I am pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of 26 members of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, namely, Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Rwanda, Slovenia, Sweden, Uruguay and Switzerland. The ACT group remains convinced of the need to consolidate the strengths of Security Council working methods, address fundamental flaws and build on innovations made. We commend the efforts deployed by Albania in its capacity as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and we thank the briefers for their important contributions. The Security Council’s ability to deliver on its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security is put to the test by disrespect of the United Nations Charter and lack of compliance with international law. Prompt and decisive action by the Security Council is needed to prevent and respond to the devastating consequences of armed conflict for civilians across the globe. By adopting resolution 76/262, the General Assembly underscored the Council’s duty to apply the United Nations Charter to its best effect to prevent and resolve conflict. This new accountability mechanism mobilizes the broader United Nations membership whenever the Council is unable to fulfil its duties because of the use of the veto by a permanent member. We welcome the timely transmission of a special report by the Council to the General Assembly in line with Article 24 of the Charter in the first application of this resolution (A/76/853, annex), and if the veto is used in future. The ACT group would like to highlight three areas to strengthen Council working methods. First, we call for a number of innovations to be continued and institutionalized. We recognize the contribution made by elected members to strengthen Council working methods. The ACT group hopes to see the comprehensive digital programme of work promoted by Norway and others, which made the Council’s work more accessible for the wider United Nations membership, become a permanent feature. Shared thematic commitments on women, peace and security, which build on the initiative by Ireland, Kenya and Mexico and joined by a growing number of presidencies, have made a tangible contribution to implementation across the Council’s agenda. Letters on working-methods commitments by successive presidencies offer a way to promote agility and institutionalize commitments towards greater effectiveness and transparency. We encourage the continued exploration and use of virtual briefings, including data-based presentations, use of visual aids and/or augmented reality. We reiterate our call to continue the codification of best practices adopted during the coronavirus disease pandemic, with a view to future-proofing the Council against the risks of other crises or major disruptions. Secondly, we underline the need for inclusiveness, which is critical for the Council’s effectiveness. The ACT group welcomes the return to in-person participation by the wider membership in Council meetings and remains ready to engage with Council members in exploring creative ways to ensure that open debates are both effective and inclusive. We also hope that the Council will return to a more inclusive approach on the acceptance of rule 37 requests. The possibility for briefers, including civil society representatives, to brief the Council through video- teleconferencing is positive. Member States directly affected by Council decisions should be able to engage in a timely manner and through adequate channels. We commend the regular holding of interactive sessions by the presidency to discuss priorities and to wrap up the month by reflecting on achievements and challenges with the wider membership. Visiting missions by the Council are an important means to gather the views of a broad range of stakeholders and to gain first-hand understanding of dynamics on the ground. We encourage the Council to continue this practice and to debrief the wider membership upon return. We reiterate our call to the Council to make better use of the annual report to provide a more complete, substantive and analytical account of its work to the General Assembly. Thirdly, we urge Council members to use all available formats to forge consensus and to enable action in situations of which the Council is seized as well as in response to emerging threats. Recalling that Members of the United Nations have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the ACT Group calls upon the members of the Council to fulfil all obligations to enable the Council to discharge its responsibilities, to uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to act in the collective interests of maintaining international peace and security. We recall that Article 27 limits the participation of Members that are directly involved in a dispute in decisions relating to the peaceful settlement thereof. We deem it crucial to continue investing in creative ways to restore and expand space for dialogue among Council members. We call on all Member States to join the ACT code of conduct and to support Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Accountability, coherence and transparency are mutually reinforcing principles that must continue to guide improvements in the working methods of the Security Council. The ACT group is committed to doing its part and to actively contributing and supporting any initiative towards that end.

I give the floor to the representative of Luxembourg.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Benelux countries  — Belgium, the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. We thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council, and we commend the efforts of Albania as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also sincerely thank Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Karin Landgren for their briefings and their recommendations. Today more than ever it is vital that the Security Council be able to fulfil its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as entrusted to it by Member States. We deplore the impasse in which the Council finds itself, as it is currently not able to fully discharge its mandate and consequently not fully able to uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations, notably owing to the use of the veto. Lack of respect for the Charter of the United Nations and international law has devastating consequences for civilians in many regions of the world, including in Syria, the occupied Palestinian territories, Ukraine and Afghanistan. In the light of the many challenges that we face, it is crucial that cooperation be strengthened between the Security Council and the General Assembly as well as with the Peacebuilding Commission and regional organizations. The transparency of the Council’s work must be ensured, and its responsibility vis-à-vis all the States Members of the United Nations must be strengthened. Recent efforts in that direction are welcome, in particular thanks to the initiative on the veto. The new mechanism created by General Assembly resolution 76/262 was implemented for the first time at the beginning of this month. In that context, we welcome the submission in good time by the Security Council of a special report on the use of the veto and the participation of a large number of Member States in the General Assembly debate (see A/76/PV.77 and A/76/ PV.78). Improving the working methods of the Security Council remains an imperative. We strongly encourage the Council to ensure as much as possible that all Member States and all relevant stakeholders are involved, with a particular focus on the participation of representatives of civil society in Council meetings. The in-person participation of Member States and observer States in open meetings of the Council is particularly important in that context. We also encourage the Council to resume its practice of field visits, which allow for discussions with a broad range of actors and allow the Council to get a direct understanding of dynamics on the ground and then to debrief all Member States upon their return. In order to ensure effective United Nations action and prevent conflicts, we call upon all Member States to join the code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, which was elaborated within the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, which is now supported by more than 120 Member States, and to support the political declaration on the suspension of the veto in the case of mass atrocities submitted by France and Mexico. The Benelux countries fully support those two initiatives. I would like to conclude by commending the heightened commitment to the women and peace and security agenda initiated by the trio of the presidencies of Ireland, Kenya and Mexico in 2021. That commitment is supported by a growing number of presidencies of the Security Council, which has allowed it to considerably strengthen the implementation of the women and peace and security agenda within the Council.

I give the floor to the representative of Guatemala.

We are grateful to Albania for having convened this open debate on the Council’s working methods. We also thank Ms. Loraine Sievers and Ms. Karin Landgren for their briefings. We trust that our deliberations will not only be a chance to renew the commitment to continue to improve the efficiency, transparency and interactivity of the Security Council, but also prove to be a solid foundation for an effective update of presidential note S/2017/507. We recognize the progress made on some processes and the strengthening of other measures contained in note 507 thanks to the commendable work of the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. However, as a former non-permanent member of the Security Council, in 2012-2013, we believe that there is still room for improvement and wish to make three few relevant points in that regard. First, the quest for awareness and understanding of the work of the Council remains vital and legitimate. Although there has been an increase in the number of open meetings of the Council, the continuation of the practice of open debates is conducive to greater participation of those who are not members of the Council, and, in recent years, the holding of many Arria Formula meetings has led us to believe that it is necessary to hold more frequent meetings with the Peacebuilding Commission, an intergovernmental advisory body that plays an important role in preventing the recurrence of conflicts, and the Chairs of the configurations in charge of specific countries, as well as other United Nations organs. Secondly, the Council has in the past taken decisions on the appointment of Chairs of the subsidiary bodies in a balanced, transparent and inclusive manner, which ushered in a change, since there is now an impression that consultations are held regarding the process, especially among members recently elected to the Council. My delegation hopes that that practice and trend will strengthen in future. It is also necessary to ensure that procedures for selecting and appointing various groups of experts will be more transparent and balanced, so that there can be as much geographic representation as possible. We therefore also attach priority to the ongoing efforts to enhance interaction between subsidiary bodies and all Member States, and we welcome initiatives such as the formal open consultations of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) on the comprehensive review of the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), on non-proliferation, held in May, and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), held in February. I should like to refer to the critical practice of holding frequent consultations between the Security Council, the Secretariat and the troop- and police-contributing countries, inasmuch as that helps improve the Council’s capacity to take appropriate and effective decisions and thus fulfil its responsibilities. Guatemala is honoured to be a troop-contributing country as part of the United Nations peacekeeping effort and reiterates its readiness to stand ready to help in that noble endeavour. We have seen, through the issuance of presidential note 507, the strengthening of many previous efforts and decisions on the working methods of the Council. Our delegation trusts that the content of the note will continue to provide practical guidance for the work of the Security Council to improve. In that context, we urge the Security Council and the Secretariat to include in the records of the meetings, whenever one of the permanent members exercises the veto in accordance with General Assembly resolution 76/262, entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. In conclusion, the Security Council’s working methods are closely linked to accountability to the entire membership of the Organization. Past practice indicates that elected members, which are accountable to regional groups and to all States Members of the United Nations, are the most likely to improve its working methods. The best way to enhance the Council’s representative and democratic nature is to strengthen standards of accountability and transparency. In addition to cooperation with the permanent members, that would lead to greater synergy in the Council around the common goal of improving its working methods.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Increasing the Security Council’s efficiency and effectiveness must always be viewed as a work in progress because the nature and scope of the challenges related to international peace and security are constantly evolving. That requires the Security Council to commit to continually improving the effectiveness and transparency of its work, as well as its interaction and communication with non-Council members. To that end, reforming and evolving the Council into a fully transparent, rules-based and, above all, accountable body is the most efficient method to ensure its transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. We commend the significant efforts and measures that have been undertaken in recent years to improve the Council’s working methods. Nonetheless, those efforts have fallen short of what United Nations Members expected because they have been few and slow. Therefore, in accordance with the discussions on the subject within the intergovernmental negotiations, efforts to advance in that area must be increased, especially within the Council itself. Against that backdrop, I would like to address the following points. First, the Security Council must adhere to the purposes and principles of the United Nations in all its decision-making procedures. Full compliance with the Charter of the United Nations will enable the Council to refrain from adopting ultra vires decisions that contravene the Charter or considering circumstances that do not pose a threat to international peace and security, as well as issues pertaining to the domestic affairs of States. That will assist the Council in preventing the abuse or overuse of its Chapter VII functions and, instead, in carrying out its obligations hereunder appropriately and responsibly. Secondly, the Security Council must assess the effectiveness of sanctions and their humanitarian repercussions at the various stages of a conflict and suspend or lift them, as needed. Sanctions, as is well acknowledged, have serious humanitarian consequences, as we have all witnessed during the coronavirus disease pandemic, putting civilian populations’ health and lives in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, working in an environment where sanctions are prevalent is often difficult for humanitarian actors. Thirdly, the United Nations system is built on multilateralism. In the face of serious and increasingly complex global challenges, the Council must practise and uphold true multilateralism, which necessitates resolving international issues through collaboration. A candid review of the Security Council’s practices reveals that the Council’s authority and powers have been repeatedly abused by certain States, which, in pursuit of their short-sighted political objectives, particularly against developing countries, regard this organ as their preferred tool to exert pressure on other countries. Such conduct not only breaches the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles of international law, but also demonstrates disrespect for the Council’s authority and powers. Fourthly, the number of issues discussed in the Council has steadily increased in recent years. The Council should exercise caution when introducing new topics for consideration and maintain consistency in its priorities. To avoid duplicating efforts and encroaching on the General Assembly’s mandate, the Council should improve communication and cooperation with the General Assembly and other United Nations organs on cross-cutting issues. Finally, the annual reports of the Security Council should contribute to the much-needed transparency and accountability of decisions and measures taken by the Security Council. During the recent discussions in the General Assembly on this issue, the vast majority of Member States renewed their call on the Security Council to present an annual report that goes beyond a simple compilation of its activities.

I now give the floor to the representative of Denmark.

Let me begin by thanking Albania, both as current President of the Security Council and as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for convening this open debate. Let me also extend our thanks and appreciation to the briefers for their very insightful remarks. I deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Like-Minded States on Targeted Sanctions — Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and my own country, Denmark. Ensuring transparency, efficiency and effectiveness in the work of the Security Council includes the strengthening of fair and clear procedures and due process for United Nations sanctions regimes. Security Council targeted sanctions are an important tool to address threats to international peace and security. However, the Group of Like-Minded States on Targeted Sanctions considers that due process standards must be improved. The issue of due process is twofold. Not only is it about safeguarding the human rights of the targeted individuals, but it is also fundamental to Member States’ ability to implement the sanctions, and is therefore a key component to ensure their effectiveness. The Office of the Ombudsperson is mandated to review only cases on the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Da’esh and Al-Qaida sanctions list. Yet there are 13 other sanctions committees, for which there is no independent system to review delisting requests. As we are all aware, national and regional courts are increasingly considering cases in relation to the United Nations sanctions regimes without access to an Ombudsperson mechanism. Avoiding any gap in Member States’ abilities to implement United Nations sanctions is a critical element to ensure the legitimacy of the sanctions. The issue of improving due process for missions formed the basis of rich discussions at a workshop convened at Greentree on 27 and 28 April this year, involving the Group of Like-Minded States on Targeted Sanctions and co-hosted by Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and the Graduate Institute in Geneva. The event brought together Security Council members, other States Members of the United Nations, United Nations senior officials, members of United Nations panels of experts and leading international scholars in order to review ongoing challenges and explore new approaches. We are aware of, and, as the Group, have reflected on, various options, such as extending the mandate of the Ombudsperson to all sanctions regimes, creating context-sensitive review mechanisms or the enhancement of the Focal Point for Delisting into an actual independent review mechanism. The time has now come for the Security Council to address such concerns in an agile and innovative manner, and we urge the Council to be open-minded when presented with possible suggestions for improvements. We also encourage incoming members to adopt a favourable approach to due process reforms. The Group would also like to warmly welcome the appointment of Mr. Richard Malanjum, who assumed his official functions as Ombudsperson on 14 February. The Group reiterates that the Office of the Ombudsperson should be able to carry out its mandate in an independent, impartial and effective manner, as set out in resolution 2368 (2017). However, the Group remains concerned that the independence of the Office is being undermined by the current contractual status and institutional arrangement of the Office of the Ombudsperson within the Secretariat. The Group urges the Security Council and the Secretary-General to continue their efforts to improve the Council’s working methods in that area. We all have an interest in ensuring that United Nations targeted sanctions respect international due process standards. We must continue to improve the mechanisms in order to safeguard the integrity of the Security Council decisions and ensure that the effective and universal implementation of United Nations sanctions regimes is not disrupted. The Group stands ready to support such efforts, and we welcome this opportunity of the open debate to discuss with so many distinguished and influential participants the various ways in which the Security Council’s working methods and due process can be improved.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea.

The Republic of Korea welcomes the timely holding of this open debate and commends Albania’s leadership as President of the Security Council and Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also thank the briefers for their insightful remarks. The experience of the Council’s innovative adaptation during the pandemic presents us with a unique opportunity to look critically at how the Council has been doing its work. Building on the lessons learned, we need to continue to explore how to further improve the transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of the Council’s work. Against that backdrop, I would like to highlight the following points. First, the Council needs to pay greater attention to the growing calls from the international community for limiting the right of the veto. The use or threat of use of the veto continues to pose impediments to the Council’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. With that in mind, Korea welcomed the adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative, in April, as well as the successful holding of the first General Assembly meeting under the process (see A/76/PV.77) earlier this month. We reiterate our support for all other initiatives aimed at limiting the use of the veto and making the Council more accountable to the whole United Nations membership. Secondly, we would like to underline that all members of the Council should have more opportunities to shoulder its work equally. While commending the positive steps taken for the early inclusion of newly elected members, we believe that more needs to be done to help them better prepare for the Council’s intense workload ahead of assuming their membership. We also support a more equitable division of labour and greater burden-sharing among all 15 members, including more active roles for elected members in the drafting and consultation processes. That will enable the Council to benefit to a greater degree from the insights of all members. Thirdly, we support the continued efforts of the Council to make strides towards finding the right balance between efficiency and transparency. While retaining efficiency and effectiveness, the Council needs to increase transparency by holding more open- format meetings and informative briefings. The enhancement of inclusivity and meaningful participation should also be encouraged, along with the sustained engagement of the wider membership, in particular the States concerned, as well as civil society actors, including women and young people. We encourage the continued utilization of virtual participation to attract a wider spectrum of briefers and allow members to be able to listen to key voices on the ground. Fourthly, we encourage the Council to continue to strengthen its interaction and engagement with other United Nations organs and bodies, including the General Assembly, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Human Rights Council. The contribution of the PBC in particular is essential given its unique ability to provide cross-cutting perspectives. The role of the PBC should be further utilized by the Council in order to enrich its discussion on thematic and regional issues, as well as on mandate renewals.

I now give the floor to the representative of Poland.

I thank today’s briefers for their insightful and valuable presentations. I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the delegation of Albania for its successful presidency of the Security Council this month, as well as its effective chairmanship of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The proceedings and deliberations of the latter are particularly significant with regard to today’s discussion on the Security Council’s working methods. Unfortunately, we continue to see how the rules- based international order is being brutally attacked these days. The Security Council is often stuck in a deadlock, making it unable to properly carry out its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The unprovoked aggression against Ukraine is the most recent example in that regard. That is why we need a Security Council that is worthy of the name. It has to be flexible, fit for purpose and able to swiftly respond to global crises. That is essential for ensuring a stable and secure international environment, based on the principles of international law and solidarity. Poland supports the efforts to improve the Councils’ working methods. We welcome the adoption of consecutive notes by the President of the Security Council, including comprehensive presidential note S/2017/507, which marks an important step in the steady development of the Council’s working methods. We acknowledge the positive developments in that regard, namely, ensuring more timely Security Council elections and providing incoming members of the Council with more time to observe its proceedings. We note the advantages of the penholdership system, with special emphasis on the effectiveness of the work of the Council. All Council members, including the elected members, should be able to engage in the drafting process and contribute to issues that concern them. In that context, we call for further change of the relevant arrangements to allow the possibility of a more equal division of the penholder responsibility. We are also convinced that the elected members (E10) can play a key role in the Council’s decision-making. With their active engagement, the organ is more transparent and effective. In that regard, we continuously advocate for strengthening the position of the E10 in the Council. As I already mentioned, we need a Security Council that is able to take swift and decisive actions. Therefore, we remain concerned about the increase of the use of veto. Too often, it has incapacitated the Council. Not only do vetoes hamper the efficiency of the United Nations system but they also undermine its credibility in the eyes of international public opinion. Therefore, Poland welcomed the establishment of the new practice of convening a General Assembly plenary meeting following the use of the veto in the Security Council. We believe that will contribute to improving the United Nations system and will translate into strengthening international peace and stability. We cannot afford to have a Security Council that is unable to live up to its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. Instead, we need a body that is efficient, transparent, representative and accountable. We believe that the further development of the Council’s working methods can bring us closer to achieving that goal. The Council can count on Poland’s full support in that regard.

I now give the floor to the representative of Japan.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Albanian presidency for organizing this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council, to which Japan has consistently been deeply committed. I am pleased that, for the first time in three years, non-Council members are able to participate in this debate in person. Many things have happened during that period with regard to the way the Council works. The physical constraints owing to the pandemic were one important factor, but growing divisions among the members was another. The latter led to the adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative, which we welcomed. Japan highly commends the flexibility and ingenuity of the Council in developing new tools and practices under the unprecedented circumstances of the coronavirus disease pandemic. They can serve as a good basis for improving its working methods, especially in order to be better prepared for any contingency in the future. Japan is honoured that it will serve once again as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, beginning in 2023. Having served as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions three times and contributed to the adoption of presidential note S/2006/507 and its revisions, we recognize the need to update it in the light of the presidential notes issued during the Kuwait and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines chairmanships of the Informal Working Group. We also acknowledge initiatives on utilizing new technologies, such as visual aids, which are similarly significant developments in the Council’s working methods. Japan intends to actively engage in efforts to further improve the working methods under the current Albanian chairmanship of the Informal Working Group, in close cooperation with other Council members, including both the permanent five members and the elected 10 members, while heeding the views of the wider United Nations membership in good faith. I look forward to contributing to the deepening of the discussions on the important theme of working methods, as a member of the Security Council beginning in January 2023.

I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

The past year has seen the Security Council return from many of its coronavirus disease-affected working methods, while searching for ways to bridge the increasing divisions among its members on key files. While we continue to be concerned about the Council’s overall effectiveness, working methods continue to be an area of steady, albeit slow, progress. We hope that submissions to today’s debate will inform discussions in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which you, Mr. President, so ably chair. We will continue to support efforts through the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, with whose statement we align ourselves. That includes improvements to the system of co-penholdership, in particular to ensure fair burden-sharing among the 10 elected members of the Security Council and the five permanent members. The Council should continue to bear in mind the lessons learned from the pandemic, including the use of video-teleconferencing technology, where useful and appropriate, to improve its inclusiveness. It should also prioritize in-person access for all States, as well as civil society. Member States should be able to access the Chamber for the Council’s public deliberations, and there should be timely and regular opportunities to address the Council under rule 37. Historic meetings were held in the Chamber in connection with the aggression against Ukraine, which were in theory not open to all members. We were not given access when we tried to attend meetings in the Chamber. That should not happen again in the future. Representatives of civil society should also be able to attend Council meetings and regularly inform the Council’s consideration of the situations before it. We are pleased to see that the wrap-up session has become part and parcel of the Council’s working methods. That is an important platform for exchanges between the Council and its membership. In that respect, we encourage Council members to ensure that their discussion be of an interactive nature and that all Member States attend and contribute. The aggression against Ukraine has seen a deadlock in the Council in the face of an ongoing assault on international order. However, we commend the Council’s decision to trigger the Uniting for Peace formula for the first time in 40 years, and the strong action taken by the General Assembly as a result. We thank those States that have mentioned the veto initiative today and are pleased to see that the Council has been able to follow up the working methods’ implications of resolution 76/262. After it was first triggered last month, the Council was swiftly able to agree on a special report (A/76/853), at the invitation of the General Assembly, which was an important and rare occurrence given that no such report had been produced in 46 years. Going forward, that need not be limited to situations in which a veto is cast. We would prefer a more substantive analysis of the reasons for each veto, but our top priority is the practice of automatic and swift follow-up and engagement, in line with the terms of the General Assembly resolution. It is also essential to have records of relevant Council meetings produced as expeditiously as possible in the future in order to ensure maximum flexibility for the scheduling of a General Assembly meeting. We highly appreciate the Arria Formula — a lasting innovation from the 1990s that can bring the attention of the Council to topics and voices that it has otherwise not heard. If used as intended, the format can do a great deal to enhance the Council’s inclusivity and relevance. We hope to see the Arria Formula used consistently in accordance with its original intent and purpose.

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

Costa Rica thanks Albania for organizing today’s open debate. There is an undeniable connection between the working methods of Security Council and conflict prevention. If the Security Council acts solely in crisis mode, responding and reacting to events instead of preventing them, it will never be able to predict when events will occur, intervene early enough to prevent them from happening and save lives. In that regard, allow me to raise the following points. The hegemonic structure of penholding prevents the elected members of the Security Council from participating in the drafting of important resolutions. That practice marginalizes the elected members, thereby enabling only a few members to frame issues and determine courses of action. The current practice of penholding restricts the likelihood of elected members being able to make greater contributions, thereby hindering all voices and views from being heard. Costa Rica urges penholding responsibilities to be shared among all Council members so that outcome documents can be representative of the plethora of views held by Council members. Similarly, fair burden- sharing among the subsidiary bodies can no longer be postponed. The current structure of the Security Council limits the scope of its elected members, assigning them the responsibility for sanctions committees and other specialized roles, while curbing their public contributions, such as advocating for unrestricted humanitarian access on behalf of the victims of conflicts that the Council has been unable to prevent or resolve with expediency. It is frustrating to witness the initiatives and often the voices of high-profile elected members being suppressed by the obstinacy and political games of the permanent members. Such suppression is most obvious in the case of the smallest States, which have also made their way into the Council. Therefore, the equitable allocation of work among all elected members not only ensures equitable, fair burden-sharing but also ensures an accurate representation of the needs and aspirations of all Council members. Costa Rica also calls for more transparency in the work of subsidiary bodies and the selection and independence of groups of experts. Similarly, we call for more inclusive processes for selecting the Chairs of those bodies and for a continued push towards greater transparency in preparing the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. We know that improving the working methods of the Security Council will take time and energy. However, given the challenges and expectations of today’s world, genuine and substantial change is needed in the way the Council functions if it is to shoulder its responsibilities. That is what Costa Rica calls for today.

I now give the floor to the representative of Thailand.

I thank you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s timely open debate, as well as for your work as Chair of the informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We also thank the briefers for their insights and constructive contributions. This debate, together with the General Assembly’s debate (see A/76/PV.77) on the special report of the Security Council (A/76/853) held earlier this month, reinforces the dialogue between the Security Council, the General Assembly and the general membership with a view to supporting the effective workings of the Council. We hope that the views and concerns expressed in today’s debate will help further enhance the work of the Council in implementing its mandate, while complementing the United Nations whole-of-system approach to international peace and security, as well as promoting the comprehensive reform of the Council. Thailand welcomes the efforts made by the Security Council to implement the measures contained in the annex to presidential note S/2017/507, including during the pandemic. The Security Council is conferred with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to act on behalf of the entire United Nations membership. To that end, we trust that the Council can further strengthen its working methods in five areas. First, inclusive and timely information-sharing on the work of the Council remains key. While we appreciate the need for a balance between confidentiality and transparency, the Council’s actions — or otherwise — have great impact. Not only do they establish the collective response of the United Nations to conflict situations, but they also shape the direction and tone of the public’s discourse and perception on the issues. It is therefore essential for the wider membership, in particular the States affected and the region concerned, to receive timely information on the matter under consideration. After all, they are the direct stakeholders. Unfortunately, Member States often encounter delays in being notified of the Council’s most recent developments, emergency meetings and concept notes of open debates. Member States should therefore be involved in the process and be informed of the Council’s work and related developments as much and as soon as possible. Such engagement contributes constructively to the Council’s work. Secondly, the viewpoints and perspectives of developing countries should be a high priority for the Council’s consideration. As the majority of the Council’s agenda involves situations in developing countries that are impacted most by such conflicts, their views should be taken into account. Within the Council, we note the increasing number of non-permanent members from developing countries entrusted with chairing the respective Committees of the Council. My delegation supports exploring ways in which non-permanent members can make greater contributions in penholdership and other roles. Thirdly, partnerships with countries in affected regions and regional organizations are crucial for promoting sustainable peace and stability. While the Council is engaged with the global ramifications of the issues on its agenda, attention should not be diverted away from concerns at the regional level and the possible effect on the paths to recovery from the pandemic and longer-term development of the countries in the affected region. In this increasingly interdependent world, no one region’s situation is more or less important than another’s. Fourthly, given the strong interlinkages between the various global crises affecting humankind and the inherent peace-development-governance nexus in most conflict situations, it is more important than ever that the Council work in increased coordination, cooperation and interaction with other United Nations organs and bodies, in particular the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Such interaction can be mutually reinforcing and complementary and should be in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Fifthly and finally, while the Council’s provisional rules of procedure allow the Council flexibility in its work, adopting permanent rules of procedure would bring about greater predictability and transparency. With various amendments and a number of documents supplementing its working methods, the Council could better function with standing rules in place.

I now give the floor to the representative of Austria.

Austria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group. At the outset, let me thank Albania for its very successful presidency and the briefers, Ms. Sievers and Ms. Landgren, for their insightful remarks. Today’s debate could not be timelier. In recent weeks, many United Nations States Members have referred to the Security Council’s responsibility for upholding international peace and security. The Russian aggression against Ukraine has clearly highlighted the need to keep improving the Council’s working methods. In a situation that constitutes a blatant breach of international law, the Council should not remain blocked by one Member State. We therefore highly welcome the General Assembly stepping up in order to fill the gap when the Council is blocked due to the use of the veto by a permanent member. Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Member States to join the ACT code of conduct and support Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As a medium-sized country, Austria relies heavily on the implementation of international law and adherence to the Charter of the United Nations by all. I would like to take this opportunity to urge all colleagues not to see attempts to make use of the Charter’s full toolbox — such as Article 27 or Article 99 — as a threat to the powers of the Security Council, but rather as additional means to find solutions to international crises. That aim lies at the heart of the Council’s responsibility. In order to better prepare the Council for future crises, continuously adapting its working methods remains vital. Let me therefore touch upon the following three issues. Inclusivity is one of the core issues that the ACT group focuses upon. While we understand that some Council members at times refer to the merit of holding closed meetings as opposed to open meetings, entering into a dialogue with the wider membership strengthens the accountability of the Council. We therefore recommend keeping a balance between open and closed meetings and ensuring the regular inclusion of non-members in Council deliberations. My second point is closely linked to the first. We commend the Council for regularly organizing wrap- up meetings at the end of the month. More and more Council members resort to organizing so-called wrap- in meetings at the start of their presidencies as well. We value those opportunities to engage in current issues on the Council’s agenda. However, we also see room for improvement. Those meetings should be more interactive. To that end, the ACT group presented a non-paper on the issue this time last year. We hope that Council members also consider those meetings as an opportunity to further shape public opinion at the United Nations in order to render them more substantial. Finally, I would like to commend those Council members that continue to improve the Council’s working methods by proposing innovative ideas. Specifically, let me highlight Norway’s digital programme of work, which made the Council’s work more accessible and transparent for the wider membership. While the Council bears the responsibility for upholding international peace and security, the wider United Nations membership bears the responsibility for enabling the conduct of effective multilateralism, including compliance with international law and adherence to the rule of law. Austria stands ready to promote those rules and values, including as a candidate for the Security Council during the 2027 to 2028 period.

I now give the floor to the representative of Singapore.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this discussion, as well as Ms. Sievers and Ms. Landgren for their briefings. Since we last debated working methods in June 2021 (see S/PV.8798), the geopolitical climate has darkened, and the Security Council has yet to exercise its mandate to maintain international peace and security in response. That has made the need to improve the Council’s working methods even more pressing. My first point concerns accountability. There must be greater accountability each time a veto is cast. Singapore was pleased to be an early sponsor of General Assembly resolution 76/262. We also reiterate that the Security Council Affairs Division should produce a special report as soon as possible. We have long called for permanent members to explain their use of the veto and the consistency of such decisions with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Accountability also implies restraint. Singapore calls on all permanent members to support the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s initiative and the Franco-Mexican initiative to not use the veto to shield violations of the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, with regard to transparency we call on the Council to improve the focus and interactivity of open debates, in line with presidential note S/2017/507, on the Council’s working methods. We also call on the Council to circulate summary records of closed consultations for the benefit of the wider United Nations membership. Thirdly, we echo calls for greater inclusivity in penholderships and for Council members to show flexibility so that the chairs of subsidiary bodies can be appointed on time. In conclusion, Singapore welcomes Albania’s proposals to introduce a tracking mechanism on the implementation of note 507 and an annual report of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We look forward to good outcomes under Albania’s leadership.

I now give the floor to the representative of Pakistan.

We thank you, Sir, for organizing this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. We also thank the briefers for their presentations earlier today. There is wide agreement within the world community that, in order to be able to respond effectively to the increasingly complex and overlapping challenges to global peace and security, the Security Council must become more transparent, accountable, inclusive and democratic. We hope that consensus will be reached in the near future through the General Assembly’s intergovernmental negotiations process on a comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Meanwhile, it is essential that the Council improve its working methods. Allow me to make a few observations about the working methods of the Security Council. First, much of the Council’s real work increasingly takes place behind closed doors in so-called informal meetings, which have no records and therefore do not assign responsibility. Explanations for most of the decisions that are taken are not provided by the Security Council. Secondly, that has not always been the case. During the early decades following the creation of the United Nations, meetings of the Council were held in an open setting. They were convened urgently at the request of a Member State or in the face of visible threats to peace and security and were open to the active participation of States non-members of the Council, which could intervene freely on issues of concern to them. That open culture of the Council’s work has been progressively eroded by the even more frequent closed meetings, especially since the end of the Cold War. In our view, enhanced engagement by the Council with the wider United Nations membership is critical. We all have an equal stake in the maintenance of international peace and security. The number and proportion of open meetings of the Council must therefore be increased, and closed meetings must be restricted to a minimum. It is no secret that there is widespread dissatisfaction with what is seen as an exclusivist and elitist culture of the Council, with outcomes mostly determined by its permanent members. There is also frustration about the use of the veto, which is exercised in the Council not only through negative votes by the permanent members but also through the Council’s informal and often unacknowledged processes. It is that reality that reinforces the belief of Pakistan and the Uniting for Consensus group that we cannot achieve reform and improve the effectiveness of the Security Council by adding permanent members to it. Its representation, openness, inclusiveness and decision-making should be improved through the expansion and empowerment of additional elected, non-permanent seats. The Security Council’s relationships with the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council should also be brought into conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. The improved timeline in the submission of the report of the Security Council (A/76/2) to the General Assembly is encouraging, but the same cannot be said about the contents of the report itself. The report provides a compendium of the Council’s deliberations on various issues, which is a useful reference, but it does not throw any light on how the Council considers specific situations and the ways in which it reaches its decisions. The disregard of the Security Council’s relationship under the Charter with the Economic and Social Council is even greater. Article 65 of the Charter provides that the Economic and Social Council “may furnish information to the Security Council and shall assist the Security Council upon its request.” But it is rare that the Economic and Social Council has been requested to play that role, and apart from creating the Peacebuilding Commission, there has been no serious effort to develop a practice of inviting the Economic and Social Council to work with the Security Council in areas and on issues where their mandates overlap. It is also increasingly evident that fundamental changes are needed in the global counter-terrorism architecture and the Security Council sanctions regime, especially to ensure, first, a new process and effective remedies in the implementation of sanctions regimes; secondly, the strengthening of the Office of the Ombudsperson to the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities with a view to enhancing transparency in Security Council sanctions; and thirdly, halting and reversing the mistaken practice of transforming soft law standards and practices into arbitrary obligations for all States through the Security Council. Finally, nothing undermines the credibility of the Security Council more than the selective implementation and non-implementation of its resolutions. The Council should seriously consider how it can improve that implementation, especially on long- standing issues such as the Jammu and Kashmir dispute and the question of Palestine. The failure to enforce its own resolutions undermines the Council’s credibility and erodes the commitment of States and peoples to the principles of the Charter and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

I now give the floor to the representative of Morocco.

At the outset, I would like to thank Albania, as this month’s President, for organizing this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions under your presidency, Sir. The Charter of the United Nations has invested the Security Council with important powers that can be exercised only through an approach based on effectiveness. Its role must be dedicated to guaranteeing international peace and security on behalf of all States Members of the United Nations in order to improve and harmonize the activities of the Security Council. The Council was forced to consider and adopt a new way of working to ensure the continuity of its activities during the difficult period of the coronavirus disease pandemic. Morocco supports the considerable efforts made to adapt the Council’s working methods to the circumstances in order to ensure its proper functioning. We note that the Security Council has continued to meet without interruption, both in person and by video-teleconference, in order to negotiate and adopt resolutions to ensure the timely renewal of mandates and to continue its dialogue with other United Nations organs and with the wider membership of the Organization, including through monthly briefings on the programme of work, as well as wrap-up meetings. Those new practices helped increase the transparency and the quality of the Council’s work and also enabled it to benefit from the diverse positions and views of Member States. We should keep in mind that the process of improving the Council’s working methods is constant and evolving. Presidential note S/2017/507 is therefore a major achievement in the quest for transparency and efficiency and the work of strengthening the Council’s authority. In that regard, and in order to ensure effective, efficient and transparent functioning in both ordinary and extraordinary circumstances, it will be important to continue to apply all of the note’s provisions, as well as all subsequent notes on the subject, and to ensure that they are updated. Morocco welcomes the many positive developments in recent years aimed at improving the functioning of the Council and strengthening its effectiveness and inclusivity. We call for continuing efforts in the same spirit to improve the Council’s working methods, for example by increasing the number of public meetings and briefings where possible. At the same time, consultations are essential both to discussing sensitive issues or reaching compromise on contentious issues where discretion is vital. In that context, I would like to pay tribute to the Security Council Affairs Division, which contributes to the improvement of the Council’s working methods through its reports, analyses and accessibility to Member States. I would also like to stress the importance of this debate and its close link with the thorny issue of the veto, which is an integral part of the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation was among the sponsors of resolution 76/262, on a standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council. Morocco also supports the code of conduct of 14 December 2015 developed within the framework of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group with regard to the Security Council’s action on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. My country also supports the initiative of France and Mexico on voluntarily and collectively committing to refraining from the use of the veto in situations of mass atrocity. As a troop-contributing country, Morocco is well placed to understand the lasting impact of the Security Council’s efforts in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and the peaceful settlement of disputes, particularly in Africa. In that context, the consultations among Security Council members and troop-contributing countries, as well as the triangular meetings between them and the Secretariat, are a fundamental tool for the implementation of the mandates of peacekeeping missions and an effective way to strengthen transparency, cooperation and interaction between the Council and Member States. Morocco also attaches great importance to the development of preventive diplomacy, which goes hand in hand with the need for swift and effective action to maintain international peace and security and promote the peaceful settlement of disputes, and for the international community to support the measures taken by the Security Council. It goes without saying that improving the Council’s working methods through shared and inclusive reflection on the part of all Member States and the political will of its members will help it to achieve its objectives. Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that the debates on improving the working methods of the Security Council are part of an overall vision of the new United Nations architecture, as also envisioned by the Secretary-General with his reform proposals, including in his report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982).

I now give the floor to the representative of Kuwait.

At the outset, Mr. President, I would like to express our thanks and appreciation to Albania for its presidency of the Security Council this month and for holding this open debate on the Council’s working methods. I would also like to express my thanks for the concept note (S/2022/499, annex) prepared for this important meeting, and our gratitude to Ms. Sievers and Ms. Landgren for their valuable briefings. We also welcome the holding of today’s annual open debate on this important topic in accordance with paragraph 100 of the note by the President (S/2017/507). Today’s open debate is being held at a time when the world is starting to recover from the coronavirus disease pandemic. This unprecedented global health crisis has had a significant impact on the performance and work of the United Nations, including the Security Council. In that context, we welcomed the provisional measure adopted by the Council to adapt to the exceptional health circumstances while maintaining its work pursuant to Article 28 of the United Nations Charter. We have seen a great deal of creativity and flexibility, which is a positive example of what we can achieve whenever the Council members work constructively and in unison with a view to ensuring that its work remains ongoing and efficient. In that regard, we welcome the fact that all meetings in 2022 have been held in person, following the improvement of the health situation in New York. Developing and improving the working methods of the Security Council constitutes a critical factor in its ability to assume its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Over the last two decades, we have seen many improvements in the working methods of the Council. We must acknowledge these improvements, which have come principally from non-permanent members. There have also been relevant initiatives launched by States and groups outside the Council. In that context, I would like to note certain innovative initiatives that the State of Kuwait has joined. Kuwait is a signatory of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct, under which Member States of the Council are committed to refraining from objecting to draft resolutions that address crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. We have also joined the Franco-Mexican initiative on the voluntary restriction on the use of the veto in situations of mass atrocities. Furthermore, together with a group of States, the State of Kuwait co-sponsored General Assembly resolution 76/262 on the veto, which was adopted by consensus and stipulates the holding of a General Assembly meeting within 10 working days of the casting of a veto in the Security Council. We believe that this historic resolution will promote the role of the General Assembly and enable it to strengthen transparency and effectiveness in its relationship with the Security Council. Pursuant to the provisions of the concept note circulated by the presidency of the Council (S/2022/499, annex), I wish to make the following suggestions and observations. First, there has been an improvement in the health situation, so the meetings of the Council are being regularly held in person. Nevertheless, we believe that the Council can continue to use certain new practices that were developed during the pandemic to make its work more flexible and effective, including allowing briefers to participate in its meetings remotely, instead of in person, and allowing Member States to present written statements in the Council’s open debates. Secondly, presidential note S/2017/507 must be fully implemented, as should all eight related notes agreed upon in December 2019, during the Kuwaiti chairmanship of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as well as the five notes agreed upon during the chairmanship of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Those notes included suggestions and improvements on many issues and topics, with the aim of increasing the transparency and efficiency of the Council. Thirdly, we continue to stress the importance of penholderships and the need to develop fair distribution of responsibilities among permanent and non-permanent Council members. There is still a lot to be done to ensure the active and fair participation of all Council members in the decision-making process, including looking into the fact that the five permanent members perennially chair certain committees and subsidiary organs of the Council. Fourthly, in order to improve the preparedness of newly elected members, we suggest allowing newly elected Member States to attend and monitor meetings of the Council starting 1 August, that is, five months before their terms as members of the Security Council begin. Fifthly, in order to promote transparency, we suggest including informal Arria Formula meetings in the Journal of the United Nations. In addition, we are pleased to see joint statements delivered on behalf of groups of States, including today’s joint statement delivered on behalf of the 10 elected members of the Council. Sixthly, we are pleased to see that the Council is making efforts to be timely in presenting its annual report to the General Assembly. We encourage Council members to make the report more analytical and more detailed. As a member of the Security Council in 2018 and 2019, the State of Kuwait notes the concrete and effective changes that have been made in the working methods of the Council. That could happen only through cooperation and a genuine desire among all its members. In that context, we hope to see more flexibility and innovation with a view to continuing to pursue greater Council effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. In conclusion, the State of Kuwait reiterates its support to a Security Council that is more transparent, efficient and accountable, including in the context of the work undertaken by the Informal Working Group. We emphasize that we are fully ready to support those efforts in any way possible.

I give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Mr. President, this new opportunity to address the Security Council’s working methods is evidence of your diligence in your roles both as President of the Council and Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, and we would like to add the following remarks. We welcome the timely use of digital technologies during the outbreak of the coronavirus disease pandemic and reiterate our call to continue the codification of best practices and lessons learned, so as to prepare for future contingencies and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work. Through the veto initiative, adopted in General Assembly resolution 76/262, which Portugal co-sponsored, the Assembly made use of a mechanism that seeks to strengthen the United Nations system and ensure accountability between the Council and the General Assembly. We would like to encourage Council members to enclose a special report in its next annual report, together with a summary of the debate in the General Assembly. We also encourage other Member States to consider joining public commitments to exercising restraint in the use of the veto, including the ACT code of conduct and the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity. On transparency, we welcome the regular holding of interactive sessions by the presidency to discuss priorities and to wrap up the month. We also encourage the Council to provide a more complete, substantive and analytical account of its work in its annual report to the General Assembly. We would also like to echo the suggestions made to strengthen the inclusiveness of the Council. In that regard, we would highlight the importance of its cooperation with the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). Alongside the PBC’s advisory role, other concrete steps could be foreseen, such as the inclusion of the PBC Chair  — and the Chairs of the country-specific configurations, where applicable  — on the Security Council’s field visits. In our view, this would allow for a more holistic approach to the whole of the peace continuum, and it could be useful even if the country or countries visited have not yet engaged with the Commission. Greater Council inclusiveness would also result from continued engagement with a broad range of actors, including civil society, regional organizations and international financial institutions  — all to the Council’s benefit. Finally, we advocate early involvement of incoming elected members in the work of the Council, as the representative from Kuwait just mentioned. Furthermore, particularly key is ensuring equitable access of all Council members to chairing subsidiary bodies, as well as a fairer distribution of penholderships. In conclusion, we trust that, during the coming months and under Ambassador Hoxha’s able stewardship, the Informal Working Group will make further progress in its discussions and adopt the draft presidential notes on specific working methods of the Security Council. This will certainly contribute to further enhancing the inclusiveness as well as the effectiveness of the Council’s work.

I give the floor to the representative of Malta.

I thank the President for organizing today’s open debate. We also thank him for the valuable work he is carrying out in his capacity as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We express our sincere appreciation for the briefings by today’s briefers, who enriched the discussion with their knowledge and experience. As a member of the Uniting for Consensus group, Malta has consistently advocated a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, accountable, effective, efficient and transparent. As an elected member for the term 2023-2024, we stand ready to cooperate with all Council members to contribute to that end. Striking the right balance between effectiveness and transparency is not easy. Open briefings allow Security Council members to make their positions known and give the opportunity to non-Council members and the public to follow the discussions. Open debates and Arria Formula meetings allow the Council to consider issues from a specific angle and provide non-Council members the opportunity the opportunity to participate in such discussions. On the other hand, closed consultations serve an important purpose, particularly when dealing with more sensitive and polarized issues. Such meetings should be frank and interactive and aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. They should not be just another forum in which members deliver written statements and reiterate well-known positions. To stay relevant in the contemporary world, the Security Council must be nimble and vigilant. The Council has a responsibility to recognize new and emerging threats and act in a timely manner to address the root causes of conflict. The Council must fully embody the values of dialogue and multilateralism. It must listen to the concerns of the wider membership and enhance channels of communication. The interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly should be strengthened wherever possible. The Security Council cannot work in isolation. In that regard, we very much appreciate the monthly wrap-in and wrap-up sessions at the beginning and end of every presidency. Elected members are uniquely placed to bring a fresh perspective to the Council. They can propose solutions and help find common ground. In that respect, we commend the Ireland, Kenya and Mexico trio for using the consecutive presidencies to shine a spotlight on the women and peace and security agenda last year. Civil society and non-governmental organizations also have a crucial role to play in providing a clear and factual picture of the situation on the ground. The Council must spare no effort to ensure that they are given adequate space to make their voices heard. Women and youth must also be at the heart of all discussions. The use or threat of use of the veto does not contribute to the smooth functioning of the Council. Malta is honoured to have formed part of the cross- regional core group, led by Liechtenstein, on the veto initiative. That initiative strengthens the point that the veto is not just a privilege but the responsibility of those who hold it. Malta is also a signatory to the French-Mexican initiative, which calls for the suspension of the veto during cases of mass atrocity, and we also support the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group code of conduct, which calls upon all Security Council members not to vote against any draft resolution intended to prevent or halt mass atrocities.

I give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

The Security Council is the embodiment of multilateralism in the maintenance of peace and security. It is therefore important to ensure that its working methods and its decision-making process uphold the true spirit of multilateralism. As an important pillar of the United Nations, the Security Council must ensure that its working methods are able to adapt to and reflect today’s geopolitical realities. Failing to do so will contribute to making not only the Council irrelevant but also the United Nations as a whole. While we are happy to have this regular debate, which offers an important opportunity for Members to provide inputs on the Council’s working methods, we hope that our discussions are truly taken into consideration in the Council’s efforts to serve all Member States. On that note, I would like to highlight three points. First, we must solidify the Council’s preparedness to work during times of disruption. The adjustments made to the Council’s working methods during the pandemic should be made clearer in the context of its terms of reference and regularly reviewed and updated. That will help to ensure the continued readiness and effectiveness of the Council in addressing peace and security challenges during future disruptions. Secondly, there is a need to enhance the process of the renewal of peacekeeping mandates, which is one of the most important responsibilities of the Council. Every effort must be made to ensure that the Council understands all the facts and conditions on the ground as well as the challenges. In that regard, the involvement of troop- and police-contributing countries should be not merely a formality but an important avenue for the Council to hear their views. We have observed, however, that such a process often takes place very close to the adoption of a mandate. That hinders the proper consideration of the troop- and police-contributing countries’ concerns and inputs in the process of the drafting of the mandate. Lastly, as conflict becomes more regionalized, the Council needs to ensure the inclusion of regional and subregional organizations in discussions related to their region. Regional organizations can often help mend fractured relationships between United Nations missions and their respective host countries by bridging the two and constructively responding to the situation on the ground. We need to develop that practice to ensure the effective participation of such organizations in Security Council meetings.

I give the floor to the representative of Bahrain.

At the outset, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the permanent delegation of the Republic of Albania, as President of the Security Council during this month and Chair of the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for having convened this important annual meeting, which is aimed at considering how to develop the working methods of the Council in future so that it can continue to shoulder its duties fully and under various circumstances and in cases of emergency. I would also like to thank the briefers for their valuable comments. It is of vital importance that the Security Council’s role as the main organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security be pivotal and concrete under all circumstances and at all times. That requires us to attach great importance to developing its working methods. In that context, we value the efforts of the succeeding Chairs of the Informal Working Group, which have contributed to publishing many vitally important notes on the working methods of the Council with a view to promoting its effectiveness and transparency and enhancing the manner in which it addresses important matters, foremost among which is the amended presidential note S/2017/507. We also commend the efforts of the sisterly State of Kuwait during its chairmanship of the Informal Working Group. The coronavirus disease pandemic proved that the international community at large and the Security Council in particular need clear working methods that take into consideration all the special circumstances that might not allow for in-person meetings. In that context, we would like to stress that the innovative working methods adopted by the Council during the pandemic provided various opportunities on which we can build in future. They also contributed to ensuring the continued role played by the Council during remote work. We would also like to stress the importance of the regular briefings held by the Chairs of subsidiary bodies of the Council, including the Chairs of Sanctions Committees, on their activities, as Member States must implement many recommendations issued by such bodies. In conclusion, we look forward to continuing to hold meetings on the working methods of the Council regularly, since they are of importance to all Member States, which aspire to seeing the Council work to the best of its ability and want its working methods adapted to continual changes. Such meetings would also make it possible to review the progress and developments made in that regard and to hear various views and perspectives on such methods.

I give the floor to the representative of Peru.

I should like to thank Albania for the initiative of holding an open debate on a topic that is essential to ensure greater effectiveness, efficiency and transparency in the work of the Security Council so that it can fulfil its mandate. We are in the midst of a revitalization process of the United Nations system — a process of improvement and of optimizing our multilateral management, whereby decisions must have a positive impact and outcome. There are many challenges facing us as Members of this Organization and many expectations from our peoples, particularly given the seriousness of the current international situation, which is testing the effectiveness of the United Nations peace and security architecture. The issue of the Council’s working methods and procedures also becomes more critical if we take into account the ongoing polarization facing the United Nations, especially the Security Council. In recent weeks, we adopted a resolution, which, while it is true that it is not part of the Security Council’s normal procedures, , is destined to change many of the Council’s practices in a constructive way because of its enormous importance. I am referring to General Assembly resolution 76/262 of last April, adopted by the Assembly, whose first application is already showing positive results, since, for the first time in the history of the Organization, two Member States have substantiated why they resorted to the use of the veto. That is the path that we must follow — more transparency, more accountability and a more democratic practice. The procedures and practices of the Security Council must be reformed and improved on an ongoing basis, always applying the principles of legality, effectiveness, timeliness, accountability and democratic openness to the participation of all Member States. Peru associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Switzerland in its capacity as coordinator of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group. In line with the points raised in the concept note (see S/2022/499, annex) prepared by the Council presidency, Peru wishes to emphasize the following. Peru believes that the process of innovation and application of digital technologies in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has yielded results and that those procedures need to be refined. In that context, the most important aspect has been the broadcasting of Council meetings on the United Nations audio-visual system. That practice is a genuine democratic opening, not only for civil society but also for all the peoples of the world. In the case of the Arria Formula mechanism, it seems essential that its use should not be limited to launching consultations, which, in themselves, are already of great importance. It is necessary to provide some kind of follow-up. Likewise, dialogue under the Toledo format should continue to be conducted jointly and interactively in the wrap-up sessions convened by the Council presidencies on a monthly basis, with a view to a more analytical exchange. Both mechanisms will continue to enhance transparency and information regarding the Council’s work. The Security Council’s procedures and working methods are not ends in themselves, but enabling tools for the Council to fulfil its responsibilities. However, they can become factors that hamper decision-making processes or make them less transparent. Yet, at the same time, they can be drivers in contributing to effective, legitimate, lawful, transparent and participatory decision-making by all Member States, of course within the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. That is why they are important. In that regard, Peru will always collaborate in, and contribute to, our work. The Security Council must be prepared for new challenges, such as those posed by COVID-19, so that, in keeping with what it has achieved, it can continue to discharge its functions and dialogue can remain open, inclusive and transparent, in accordance with Article 37. There are circumstances in the life of institutions where procedural issues, such as working methods and procedures, tend to take on a unique significance and represent substantive decisions. That usually happens in times of major crises or in circumstances where the reality poses major challenges. Today the world is in a multidimensional crisis and the challenges are the decisions that the international community must take to restore peace throughout the world, particularly in Ukraine, and to recover the right of peoples to fulfil their own destiny, affirm their human rights and enjoy a decent life without discrimination of any kind.

I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

I thank you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s open debate. We reiterate our support for a comprehensive and in-depth reform of the Security Council, including its working methods, so as to make it a transparent, democratic and representative organ. It is imperative that the Security Council adopt its rules of procedures in order to put an end to the provisional status that its rules have had since the establishment of this organ. That is essential for transparency and the necessary accountability to all States Members of the United Nations, on behalf of which the Council must act, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. It is essential that there be more transparency in the Council’s work to ensure that it effectively discharges its key responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. The additional restrictions on the functioning of the Security Council during the pandemic reaffirmed the importance of recognizing the provisional nature of the applicable working methods only in response to the exceptional circumstances of the health contingency and not as a precedent for the Council’s future work. In all circumstances, we should ensure that the States directly involved or particularly affected by an issue under the Council’s consideration can participate in the deliberations and decision-making on matters that affect them, as set out in Article 31 of the United Nations Charter. Transparency in informal consultations should also be guaranteed and records of the organ’s informal consultations should be issued. Informal closed meetings should be the exception and not the rule. The number of open meetings of the Council has increased to some extent over the past few years, including open debates and briefings held by presidencies on the programme of work at the beginning and end of each month. However, we regret that there is a persistent trend in the Security Council to work in closed formats, present only basic descriptive information about its work to the rest of the membership every year, take decisions without addressing the concerns of States not members of the organ and compel action on draft resolutions when there are still considerable differences as to their content and scope. We should also take into account the concerns expressed by several delegations, including ours, regarding the adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/262, where for the first time we saw the activation of the new mechanism on explanation of the veto that was set up under that resolution. There should be no restrictive or selective application of the Charter, which hampers the achievement of an in-depth reform of the Security Council and its working methods. The lack of special reports on measures to maintain international peace and security, as provided for in Articles 15 and 24, is another gap to overcome. We support the proposal by a number of Member States to hold a debate in the General Assembly on the annual reports of the Security Council at a date nearer to the year-end. That would allow for a more contextualized analysis of the organ’s work during the review period. It would require an adjustment to the reporting cycle for such reports, which should be comprehensive and analytical. There is a need to eliminate exclusive practices and ensure a genuine participation in, and the democratization of, the work of the Security Council, including in its decision-making processes. The expansion of the Security Council should be in both permanent and non-permanent membership categories in order to ensure that there is an adequate representation of developing countries. The veto power should be eliminated, but, until that is the case, the new posts established in the permanent membership category as a result of the comprehensive reform of the Council must have the same privileges and rights as the current ones, including the veto power. We reiterate that the issue of the veto should not be treated separately from the other issues being considered within the mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, established pursuant to General Assembly decision 62/557. Otherwise, we will not be able to achieve a comprehensive and in-depth reform of the Security Council, which we need urgently. We once again call for the Security Council to abide by its mandate and respect the functions of other United Nations organs. The Council must stop expanding the scope of its interpretation of international peace and security and infringing on the functions and responsibilities of the General Assembly. It must also cease the selective manipulation of its methods and practices to suit political and imperialist agendas. Such strategies undermine the Council’s role in maintaining international peace and security, further exacerbate conflicts and divisions and undermine the multilateralism, credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of Slovenia.

At the outset, we would like to thank the Albanian presidency for organizing this important and timely debate, and we thank the briefers for their insightful remarks. Slovenia aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the Permanent Representative of Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group. We commend the work of Albania as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, and we welcome the progress made in recent years in advancing the working methods of the Council. We encourage further efforts towards ensuring that the Council’s working methods are conducive to greater transparency, effectiveness and efficiency in its work, including in the implementation of presidential note S/2017/507 and all subsequent notes by the President. In that regard, we welcome the practice of monthly working-methods commitments by the Security Council presidencies. We see the use of shared thematic commitments to the women and peace and security agenda, initiated by Ireland, Kenya and Mexico — three elected members of the Council — as an important and innovative step towards promoting its implementation. That approach could be considered a useful way to advance other issues on the Security Council’s agenda as well. We also welcome the efforts to increase interaction and engagement with the United Nations membership, with the resumption of in-person participation in open debates by the wider membership and engagement in the form of interactive presentations of priorities and monthly wrap-up sessions by the presidencies. Our collective experience in recent years has shown how important it is to be prepared for unexpected global events during which the Council might not be able to function normally. The pandemic facilitated innovative solutions and adaptations so that the Security Council was able to continue its work, and we join the call for codifying those best practices. The constant development of the working methods and their implementation are a key part of ensuring that the Council’s work is more effective and transparent. However, the quality of working methods and their implementation alone cannot offset the effects of geopolitical realities on the Council’s ability to fulfil its mandate to maintain international peace and security. In that regard, Slovenia believes that reform of the Security Council is long overdue. The Council should be made more representative and reflective of realities in the international community, as well as more accountable. Slovenia supported and sponsored the General Assembly’s recently adopted resolution 76/262, entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, as an important step towards more accountability. We believe that the right of the veto represents a power that should only be used with the greatest responsibility, accountability and transparency, as it affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Council’s action on behalf of the international community. In that regard, Slovenia supports the French-Mexican initiative on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity, as well as the use of the ACT code of conduct. We call on Member States that have not yet done so to join those important initiatives.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. Given the lateness of the hour, with the concurrence of the members of the Security Council, I intend to suspend the meeting until later this afternoon. The open debate will resume immediately upon the adjournment later this afternoon of the 9080th meeting of the Council.