Global Climate Change Policy (UNSC) — Student

Fictional, set in the present day. Developed countries have been releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In recent decades, rapid economic growth in major developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil have led to significant increases in their own greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other organizations and governments have concluded that the warming observed in recent decades is a consequence of human activity. The effects of this global warming or climate change pose risks not only to the environment, but also to the security and livelihoods of people around the world, both now and in the future. Various international responses are possible, but the questions of how to cut emissions and prepare for climate consequences, and who should bear the costs of doing so, have few simple answers. UN Security Council members will need to weigh the options, bearing in mind the potential impact of climate change, the potential effects of proposed measures to limit or prevent it, and the need to secure international support for the multilateral approach from both developed and developing countries.  

The United Nations is the largest and most prominent international organization. The membership of the UN includes nearly all the world’s countries. It was established in 1945, after the end of World War II, by the United States and some four dozen other countries in an effort to build a more peaceful and cooperative postwar world. The United Nations has four main priorities: to keep peace throughout the world, promote fundamental human rights, strengthen international law, and pursue “social progress” and higher standards of living.

One of the most important functions of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security. This is primarily the task of the UN Security Council, a decision-making body that comprises fifteen countries. Five of these countries hold permanent seats and ten are elected on a rotating basis. The five permanent members (known as the P5) are the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The council’s main responsibilities are to evaluate threats to international peace and security and to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. When a peaceful settlement cannot be reached, the Security Council can impose diplomatic or economic sanctions. The Security Council can even authorize using force to resolve conflicts and prevent new ones. The Security Council has addressed a variety of issues, such as civil wars, terrorism, arms control, and natural disasters.

Despite its prominent position the Security Council’s influence is limited. Any action requires the unanimous agreement of the P5. This means that no resolution can be adopted if even one permanent member votes no—or vetoes—the measure. This kind of agreement is often difficult to reach, especially when a permanent member thinks its interests will be jeopardized if the measure passes. Moreover, the United Nations lacks its own military forces and has no enforcement power. In short, the Security Council can only do that to which its member states agree. These factors mean that countries, especially major powers, can bypass the Security Council or ignore its decisions. Nonetheless, the United Nations is the only organization with essentially universal membership, making it an important feature of international affairs.

Resources related to UN:

Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has grown to include 193 member states. The United Nations has several subsidiary bodies, and a network of offices and programs around the world. The nature of the issues on the UN agenda has evolved over time. The Cold War and its associated conflicts dominated for much of the twentieth century. Hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union held up much UN activity. During the Cold War, the Security Council was often deadlocked, given the veto each country held as a permanent member. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this dynamic began to change. In the past twenty years, issues including climate change, terrorism, and international migration have shifted the UN focus away from interstate conflict.  Increasingly, the focus is on problems that transcend national borders.

Organs

The United Nations is divided into six principal organs or parts: the General Assembly, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Security Council.

The General Assembly deliberates on the widest range of issues, spanning all areas of the United Nations’ work. The General Assembly is the only body in which all 193 UN member states are represented, each having one vote. General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding. In other words, they are recommendations.

The Secretariat carries out the institution’s day-to-day work. Led by the secretary-general and comprising tens of thousands of staff members from various countries, it staffs UN offices around the world. The Secretariat administers peacekeeping missions and operates communications, financial, and many other functions. As the organization’s chief administrative officer, the secretary-general attends sessions of UN bodies, consults with world leaders and others, reports on the work of the United Nations, and acts as a spokesperson.

The United Nations also includes the Economic and Social Council. This body is tasked with coordinating and discussing economic, social, and environmental issues. The United Nations also includes the Trusteeship Council, created to provide international supervision for decolonization and now largely inactive. Another organ of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), responsible for settling legal disputes between countries.

The Security Council is tasked with identifying and addressing threats to international security. In addition, it makes recommendations to the General Assembly for the appointment of the secretary-general and the admission of new members to the United Nations. Security Council decisions are communicated through resolutions. These are formal texts that outline steps to be taken and the reasoning behind those steps. In the absence of agreement, the body could also issue presidential statements. Presidential statements are similar in content and form to a formal resolution but do not legally bind member states.

Structure

Membership

The United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom make up the permanent members of the council. The remaining ten members are elected by the General Assembly to serve two-year terms. In electing nonpermanent council members, the General Assembly considers two factors. It must consider the “contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization.” This stipulation means that aggressive, norm-defying countries tend not to be elected to the council and that countries that contribute significantly to the United Nations (financially or in the form of personnel and equipment) appear more frequently. Second, nonpermanent members must reflect an equitable geographic distribution, meaning members must be elected from each of the major regions of the world.

Presidency

The Security Council presidency is held on a rotating basis by both permanent and nonpermanent member states. The position rotates in English alphabetical order by country name, each country holding office for one month. The president presides over meetings and serves as the Security Council’s representative before all other UN organizations. However, the UN secretary-general, not the Security Council president, sets the agenda for council meetings. The president simply approves this agenda.

Subsidiary Organs

Various subsidiary organs exist to support the Security Council’s mission and implement its resolutions. These range from committees on sanctions, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation to international criminal tribunals that prosecute those responsible for genocide and war crimes. The council also maintains partnerships or close relationships with a variety of other elements in the UN system, such as the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and the International Court of Justice.

Proceedings

Meetings of the Security Council are typically called when a state—even a nonmember (one of the two observer states at the United Nations or other states whose sovereignty is disputed)—brings a dispute to the Security Council’s attention. Meetings of the Security Council can also be called when the General Assembly refers a question to the council, or when the secretary-general raises a concern about international peace and security. Once the president decides that a meeting is necessary, they call for a session to address the issue.

Both UN members and nonmembers—the latter if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Security Council—are invited to participate, though nonmembers do not have a vote in the council’s discussions. If a Security Council member is party to the dispute being discussed, it must abstain (in other words, formally refrain) from voting.

Both Security Council members and invited participants can introduce a draft of a resolution—a ruling or recommendation made by a UN body—expressing a Security Council decision. After debating proposals, any member can call for a vote. A resolution needs nine votes to pass. A dissenting vote from any of the five permanent Security Council members can defeat a resolution, no matter how many affirmative votes it receives. This powerful dissenting vote is known as the veto. Permanent members can use their veto for any reason. Typically, they do so to stop resolutions that threaten their national interests. Security Council members can also abstain from voting. In any case, a resolution passes as long as it receives nine votes and no permanent member exercises a veto. Permanent members sometimes abstain from a vote if they disagree with a resolution but are not sufficiently opposed to veto it.

Powers, Functions, and Tools

If a resolution passes, the Security Council has several powers that it can use to ensure that resolution’s implementation. Certain Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding on all UN member states. This means that countries are obligated to comply with the terms of the resolution. This power sets the Security Council apart from other UN organs, which are empowered only to issue recommendations.

The United Nations’ founding document, the UN Charter, lays out the tools the Security Council can use to execute its work. These are established in Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the charter. Under Chapter VI, the council can only make recommendations of how parties should resolve a dispute. Under Chapter VII, the council can use more forceful methods. Generally, resolutions under Chapter VII are considered legally binding.

Chapter VI: Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Chapter VI allows the Security Council to seek solutions to disputes by “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means.”

Actions taken under Chapter VI include

The recommendations made under Chapter VI are just that—recommendations. They cannot be imposed on the parties concerned without their consent.

Peacekeeping missions can fall under Chapter VI or Chapter VII. In the case of Chapter VI missions, forces are deployed to help maintain a peace agreement, cease-fire, or other such arrangement that has already taken hold between warring parties. Peacekeeping missions under Chapter VI can include unarmed observers, lightly armed troops, or both. Their goal is to prevent new outbreaks of conflict and peacefully resolve disputes that arise. UN personnel tend to be stationed along a boundary line and their role is usually to report infractions of peace agreements rather than to intervene. Chapter VI peacekeeping missions require the consent (or agreement) of the parties involved in the conflict, are considered impartial, and do not use force except in self-defense.

Chapter VII: Maintaining or Enforcing Peace

Chapter VII addresses “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

Actions taken under Chapter VII include

calling for military intervention, either by multinational forces (organized, e.g., by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]) or by regional organizations (such as the African Union).

Unlike Security Council resolutions issued under Chapter VI, those adopted under Chapter VII are binding. Two examples of Chapter VII resolutions are Resolution 1695, which in 2006 imposed sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear program. Likewise, resolution 1973 in 2011 established the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan civil war.

One of the most frequently used tools under Chapter VII is the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are restrictions on a country, organization, or individual, typically limiting the target’s ability to travel, trade, or access financial resources. They can be used to discourage certain future actions, such as building nuclear weapons, to pressure a party to act, or to punish it for violating international rules. Sanctions can target entire sectors of a country’s economy. Generally,  the Security Council pursues targeted sanctions—sometimes called smart sanctions—against certain industries, businesses, or individuals. These can include arms embargoes, travel restrictions, or financial asset freezes.

Sanctions have become a popular tool because they offer a way to intervene in an issue without the risks and costs associated with using military force. However, sanctions have raised some concerns as well. Critics have argued that even highly targeted sanctions can have unintended consequences, especially on already vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the Security Council lacks a concrete method of enforcing its sanctions. Instead, it must rely on individual countries to enact them. If sanctions are weakly enforced, the target could possibly work around them, avoiding their effects and potentially discrediting the value of sanctions in the future.

If nonmilitary options, such as sanctions, fail to resolve a dispute, the Security Council can authorize a peace enforcement mission. Unlike Chapter VI peacekeeping missions, Chapter VII enforcement missions do not require the consent of the parties involved. Chapter VII enforcement missions are authorized to “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The personnel involved can include heavily armed troops and can use force in situations other than self-defense. Chapter VII peace enforcement missions can take different forms. Sometimes they are undertaken by UN peacekeeping forces and operate under UN command. In other instances they can be led by a coalition of member states authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution.

The line between Chapter VI and Chapter VII missions is not always clear. A Security Council resolution does not need to explicitly refer to the chapter it is invoking.  A mission’s mandate—or description of its mission—can change over time to adjust to changing circumstances; a mission established under Chapter VI can be expanded to also fall under Chapter VII if the situation evolves and requires a more robust intervention.

The Security Council was able to greatly expand its activities at the end of the Cold War. Without the United States and the Soviet Union in direct opposition, the number of vetoes declined significantly. The council was able to take action on a greater range of issues, including civil conflicts and humanitarian crises. During the 1990s, the Security Council authorized more peacekeeping missions than it had in the previous forty years combined. It authorized UN-led missions such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council also authorized coalition operations such as the 1990 Gulf War. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, international terrorism also came to the forefront of the council’s agenda.

The Security Council has also broadened its view of international security in recent years, adopting resolutions on issues such as HIV/AIDS, the protection of women and children in humanitarian crises, and climate change. In 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a series of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aiming to promote global economic development, environmental protection, and social well-being. The SDGs emphasize the interconnected nature of global challenges and the need for cooperation across governments and institutions. Accordingly, the Security Council has paid increasing attention to the ways in which social, economic, and environmental factors influence the maintenance of peace and security.

Despite this increased activity, the Security Council continues to face significant challenges. The United Nations greatly expanded its peacekeeping efforts after the Cold War. But peacekeeping missions have faced criticism for being underfunded, for being limited in scope, and for abuses committed by peacekeepers themselves. In some cases, such as in Rwanda in 1994, peacekeepers have been accused of failing to prevent genocide. Those failures led many countries to argue for a new understanding of peacekeeping and foreign intervention. In 2005, UN member countries adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. This doctrine establishes that countries have a responsibility to intervene in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity that a national government cannot or will not stop. This remains a nonbinding norm, and its applicability in specific situations is often disputed. Moreover, conflicting interests among the security council’s veto-wielding permanent members often curtail the possibility of approving a robust intervention.

In recent years, renewed tension among the United States, China, and Russia has emerged as an obstacle to Security Council action. Observers and Security Council members themselves have sharply criticized the council’s inability to take action on the Syrian civil war. This inability to take action is in spite of multiple reports of war crimes and an estimated death toll of at least five hundred thousand people. Russia, an ally of Syria’s government, has vetoed several resolutions aimed at stabilizing the conflict and alleviating the growing humanitarian crisis, arguing that any such resolution would be a violation of Syria’s sovereignty. Vetoes have increased in the last decade, with Russia and the United States casting the majority of them.

These challenges have led many UN members, including the United States, to call for changes to the Security Council. Many observers argue that the council’s composition, which allots the five permanent seats to the winners of World War II (the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom), does not reflect the power structure of today’s world. They argue instead for extending permanent membership to more countries and adjusting the regional distribution of permanent membership. These reforms could help better represent large and growing populations in Africa and South America. Another source of criticism has been the P5’s veto, which, critics assert, undermines the council’s ability to take action. In recent years, a growing number of UN member states—including France, a permanent member—have supported calls for P5 members to voluntarily refrain from using their veto power in situations involving mass atrocities. Other member states have suggested that the veto power be removed altogether.

Reform is controversial and complicated. Any reform of the Security Council would likely require an amendment to the UN Charter that is approved and ratified by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and then a vote in the Security Council. Permanent members of the Security Council would retain their usual right to veto. Given this, any reform of the UN Security Council that is not supported, or at least tolerated, by the P5 is unachievable, and garnering such support or tolerance will almost certainly prove impossible.

Developed or industrialized countries, including the United States, have been releasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for more than a century. These gases are released by burning fossil fuels for power, heat, transport, and industrial activity. Recently, rapid economic growth in major developing countries such as Brazil, China, and India has led to significant increases in their greenhouse gas emissions as well. Greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere causing a phenomenon known as global warming, which leads to changes in the planet’s climate.

Climate change poses risks not only to the environment but also to the security and livelihood of people in the United States and around the world. These effects include rising sea levels, greater heat extremes, more intense precipitation events, deeper droughts, stronger storms, and bigger wildfires. If current trends continue, growing plentiful and affordable food for a rising global population could become more difficult. Populations in low-lying areas—including many of the world’s major cities—could be forced to move. Furthermore, extreme weather could threaten the health of billions of people.

Rising greenhouse gas emissions could be addressed through policy at both domestic and international levels. However, if countries with significant emissions fail to act, the overall level of warming will increase. Multiple international agreements on climate change have been developed over the years. The most notable of these is the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement aims to prevent global warming above 2°C by the end of the century. Given the grave risks, the Paris Agreement urges countries to strive to contain global warming below  1.5°C. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will not be easy. Modern economies depend on fossil fuels. Alternative sources such as solar and wind energy are growing. However, alternative sources cannot fully replace fossil fuels yet. Moreover, currently available measures to increase energy efficiency are costly and time-consuming. Climate change is a difficult issue for policymakers. The questions of how to cut emissions and prepare for climate repercussions, and who should bear the costs of doing so, have few simple answers.

Hypothetical Decision Point

A major climate summit is approaching. At the UN climate summit in Paris in 2015, world leaders pledged to reduce or limit their countries’ emissions and to monitor progress toward these goals. However, a new scientific report warns that governments will need to make urgent and unprecedented changes beyond their commitments under the Paris Agreement to avoid serious and potentially irreversible environmental consequences. Despite this alarming information, countries have taken relatively few additional steps toward meeting ambitious targets and in some cases have even retreated from their climate commitments to the Paris Agreement. 

As a part of the upcoming summit, the UN Security Council is convening. The Council will discuss, and take possible action on, the issue of climate change. Historically, the UN Security Council has not taken serious action on climate change. This has left climate action under the auspices of states and other UN bodies. In recent years, the council has begun to discuss the effects of climate change on global security. In light of the growing threat that climate change poses, members will need to decide whether addressing climate change is within the Security Council’s purview. If so, the Council will then decide on what actions are available that could address climate change generally or limit its effects on global peace and security. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases heat the planet through a process known as the greenhouse effect. When sunlight reaches the earth, it heats the surface. Some of that heat is released back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap some of that heat rather than allowing it to escape back into space, which warms the atmosphere further. Most greenhouse gases are released during the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. 

Although the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has changed naturally in the past, the changes being observed now are much faster and much bigger [PDF] than previous changes. Carbon dioxide levels are now substantially higher than at any other point in millions of years. Careful analysis of the sources of carbon found in the atmosphere indicates that this rise is due to human activity. 

As global temperatures rise, experts warn that extreme weather events including droughts and forest fires will occur more frequently. As a result,  major ecosystems will be threatened. Over the past decade, oceans have warmed faster than expected, and drought and monsoon cycles have intensified. In recent years, global average temperatures have continued to reach ever-higher records. Climate-related wildfires have raged in Australia, the Amazon Rainforest, the Arctic, and California. In the United States alone, climate change contributed to twenty-eight separate disasters in 2023. These disasters included hurricanes, wildfires, and extreme storms that amounted to billions of dollars in damage. Some projections show that rising sea levels could flood populated coastal areas in the United States in the coming decades. Precise forecasts are difficult to make, but researchers estimate that, worldwide, climate change could force up to one billion people from their homes by 2050 if global temperatures are not moderated.

The over 190 countries that joined the 2015 Paris Agreement have agreed that in order to avoid catastrophic harm from climate change, temperature increases by 2100 should be kept below a maximum of 2°C, and preferably below 1.5°C relative to global average temperatures at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Yet little agreement exists on how to achieve this goal. Many policymakers question whether even a 2°C goal can be met.

Many countries are concerned that making the major, rapid reductions required to meet the targets in the Paris Agreement will be expensive, politically controversial, or both. Moreover, countries disagree as to who should bear the most responsibility for achieving that target. Governments of developing countries point out that developed countries bear the most cumulative responsibility for climate change mitigation. This is because developed countries have been emitting at high levels for the longest time. (For example, the United States is the largest overall emitter historically and the second-largest currently.) Governments of developed countries, on the other hand, note that emissions from developing countries are rising fast, and the majority of future emissions are likely to come from the developing world. (Indeed, China has already surpassed the United States and Europe in CO2 emissions.) 

Despite these challenges, addressing climate change has been a prominent international concern since the 1980s. In 1992, the United States and 164 other countries signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The goal of this framework was to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous changes in the climate. The convention did not set specific targets for countries. Instead, it established the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” among countries, placing higher expectations on developed countries. Those countries pledged to voluntarily reduce emissions and make regular reports on their progress. These reports showed little progress in subsequent years toward meeting the voluntary reductions. 

The UNFCCC also established a Conference of the Parties (COP), which called treaty signatories to an annual meeting to discuss the agreement’s implementation and make any changes they thought necessary. In 1997, the parties agreed on a change in the agreement. This was known as the Kyoto Protocol, which mandated that thirty-seven industrialized countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The protocol had limited results: developing countries faced no required emissions cuts, and the United States, the largest greenhouse gas emitter among developed countries, never ratified the treaty. The treaty failed to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and brought about only modest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Despite its limitations, the Kyoto Protocol laid the framework for other, more robust climate agreements, including the Paris accord.

In December 2015, the UNFCCC convened a major summit in Paris. The goal was to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. Over the course of 2015, countries were asked to submit pledges to the UNFCCC, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). (Now that the deal has come into force, these are referred to as nationally determined contributions [NDCs].) These documents were requested from all member countries, rich and poor. These documents outlined what each country intended to do to reduce its current emissions or limit future emissions growth. Most pledges involved reducing CO2 emissions. Some NDCs also addressed issues such as adopting renewable energy sources, reducing coal use or storing related emissions underground through a process known as carbon capture and sequestration, and preserving or restoring forests. Independent assessments of the pledges found that, collectively, they would reduce emissions significantly if fulfilled, but not by enough to reach the 2°C target recommended by the IPCC. 

At the summit, negotiators also debated whether and how to monitor countries’ progress toward fulfilling their pledges and how to make pledges more stringent over time. Policymakers also discussed whether and how to provide financial support to help poor countries adapt to the changing climate and reduce their own emissions. The final agreement called on countries to make new emissions reduction pledges every five years, beginning in 2023, with the hope that they would increase their reduction targets each time. Wealthy countries also pledged additional money to help poor, vulnerable countries adapt to the effects of climate change. The degree to which the agreement is successful in mitigating climate change will only be seen over time. However, most analysts agree that the Paris summit produced the most important global climate agreement since the Kyoto Protocol. 

The Paris Agreement came into force in 2016. In 2017, then U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the accord. In response China, India, the European Union, and many other signatories reaffirmed their commitments. The United States’ withdrawal from the agreement became effective in late 2020. However, shortly after the inauguration of President Joe Biden in January 2021, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement. 

Though the commitments that states made under the Paris Agreement have resulted in some emissions reductions, the UN Environment Program’s annual reveals a significant disparity between the emissions reductions that countries have pledged to make and the total reductions needed to achieve the agreement’s goals. Furthermore, most countries are not actually on track to meet the commitments they made in Paris. If current trends continue, climate models predict that temperatures will more likely rise by 2.7°C. Such a rise in temperature would increase the risk of catastrophic harm from climate change.

Several countries have made historic investments in green initiatives in recent years. The 2022 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, included $370 billion for climate-related projects, making it the largest climate investment in the country’s history. European countries, most notably France and Germany, have made large-scale investments in climate initiatives as well. Still the vast majority of countries continue to lag behind on climate spending, making pledges more difficult to fulfill.

The United Nations has been involved in addressing climate change for nearly fifty years. However, the first UN Security Council meeting that addressed the connection between climate change and insecurity did not take place until April 2007. The council has increasingly held meetings to discuss the connections between climate and security in the past decade. That being said, the first climate security resolution was not passed until March 2017. Resolution 2349 primarily addressed protection for civilians from terrorist acts by Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin. The resolution also recognized climate-related risks that would continue to destabilize the region. Effects of the resolution on environmental monitoring remain weak. In recent years, some countries have used their presidential terms at the UN Security Council to organize high-level debates on climate and security risks. For example, Germany used its term to establish an informal expert group on climate-related risks to peace and security, which first met in November 2020 and focused on Somalia. 

Within the United Nations, the Security Council has the unique authority to adopt resolutions that are considered binding on member states. It also has significant authority to coordinate action across multiple agencies and organizations within the United Nations. Despite multiple UN agencies addressing climate change at different levels already, the UN Security Council has yet to use this authority to address climate issues directly.

So far, council members have not reached a consensus about whether the Security Council should specifically address climate change. In 2021, Ireland and Niger jointly sponsored a draft resolution acknowledging the effects of climate change on security issues. They called for greater consideration of climate issues in future Security Council matters. The resolution gained the support of twelve members, but ultimately failed after Russia vetoed it.

As the threat of climate change grows and its effects on global security become more apparent, Security Council members will likely need to revisit questions of the Council’s role in addressing climate issues. Several members of the council as well as small island states and developing states could argue that climate change represents a security concern. Such a concern could require climate-related assistance to those most directly affected. Other member states could counter that climate change is not in-and-of-itself a threat to international peace and security. Taking this position would mean climate change is outside the purview of the Security Council, which has traditionally only dealt with acute threats. Considering the major warnings expressed by climate experts, some member states could call for the creation of a more robust climate agreement that implements market-based approaches to mitigate climate change. 

As members decide what action the Security Council should take on climate change, they will need to consider how to gain the unanimous approval of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council. Diverging interests among the permanent members could be a barrier to robust action.
In their deliberations, Security Council members will first need to decide whether it is appropriate for the Security Council to take action on climate change at all. If they do elect to take action, members could consider several options:

Formally Expand the Scope of the UN Security Council to Reflect Climate Change as a Threat to International Security

The UN Security Council could decide that climate change represents a threat to international peace and security. Therefore it would fall within the council’s purview to address. In its most ambitious form, this option could entail adopting a resolution authorizing peacekeeping missions to climate-threatened areas change–related food and water scarcity. As climate driven scarcity and displacement grows more acute, a peacekeeping force could maintain stability and ensure access to humanitarian aid. 

The Security Council could further demand that member states allow regular independent risk assessments of their mitigation strategies to ensure they are compatible with UN climate goals. Members could also consider addressing climate risks to international security by building out early-warning systems and commissioning annual reports on climate and security. They could further create a Climate Security Committee within the council to institutionalize future climate-related action and coordinate the activity of other UN organs to address climate risks.

This option would represent an unprecedented expansion of the Security Council’s operations. However,  it could allow for a robust international climate response and mitigate many security risks posed by climate change. It is likely to be controversial and could alienate large emitters such as China.

Call for a Renegotiation of the Paris Agreement

Considering the security risks raised by climate change and the insufficiency of the Paris Agreement as outlined by climate experts, members could decide to adopt a resolution calling for renewed climate negotiations. This move could prompt the creation of a more robust climate agreement with stricter emissions targets. 

A new international climate agreement could also adopt new measures to secure emissions reductions, including:

A binding, international agreement would be the most ambitious goal and could have the most benefit. However, it also faces the most obstacles. Such an agreement would be expensive for countries to implement. Stringent climate standards could drive up prices on many goods, potentially harming those living in poverty. Developed and developing countries often disagree on who should bear the main responsibility for mitigation efforts. This makes an agreement that binds countries to specific steps difficult to achieve. Member states could consider whether to mandate subsidies as a method of offsetting the financial consequences of any agreement. Both cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes are also politically controversial in many countries, including the United States. Given these obstacles, member states will need to consider how to ensure maximum participation in negotiations. If climate activists and leaders perceive that an agreement stronger than the Paris Agreement cannot be reached, they could opt to not partake in new negotiations. On the other hand, if an agreement is perceived as too severe, it could drive major emitters away. 

Implement Climate-Related Assistance 

The UN Security Council could adopt a resolution requiring high-emitting member states to provide financial, technological, or professional assistance to poorer countries to help them mitigate their emissions, develop or adopt new technology, or adapt to climate change. 

Wealthier countries could, for example, directly finance green projects in developing countries, including renewable power plants and anti-deforestation initiatives. Many countries and organizations, including the United States and international financial institutions, have already been doing this through climate funds. Adaptation assistance likewise could take many forms. These adaptations could include support such as sharing better climate information, providing drought-resistant seeds to help farmers better cope with climate effects, and assisting in infrastructure improvements such as flood protection systems.. 

Climate-related assistance, whether pursued alone or as part of a broader approach, is subject to debate. Advocates often argue that it is morally necessary because many poor countries have done little to contribute to climate change but are likely to suffer some of its worst effects. Such assistance could also have practical political effects. It demonstrates that industrialized countries are willing to address the concerns and needs of developing countries. This can increase the willingness of developing countries to join global mitigation efforts. Nevertheless, members could simply not want to commit their resources to providing assistance for other countries or they could not consider climate a priority security issue for the UN Security Council. 

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

Your assignment prior to the role-play is to prepare a set of prepared clauses for a potential Security Council resolution. These clauses, along with those of other students, will form the basis of the discussion in the role-play.

You should bring

Each operative clause should present a complete proposal. Make sure that your proposed solutions are within the powers of the Security Council and are practical. Your operative clauses might be designed to work in concert (perhaps economic sanctions, mediation, and a peacekeeping force) or might be a set of alternatives from which you hope one will be adopted (perhaps three peacekeeping proposals that differ in their details).

In writing each of your operative clauses, consider the following points:

If your operative clauses start to get long and messy, use subsidiary clauses!

The goal should be to create clauses that include all the information necessary for putting the plan into action. It can be helpful to imagine an official tasked with carrying out the resolution and asking whether they have all the information they need to implement it.

If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the UN Security Council’s final vote.  

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the UN Security Council vote.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of multilateral negotiations. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, the policy review memo.  

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your written reflection: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the UN Security Council meeting and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the subsequent discussion. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the UN Security Council’s decision where appropriate.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all that you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see if and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Country Resources:

Essential facts about your country

Information about your country’s foreign policy

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

What is a UN resolution?

A UN resolution is a formal expression of the opinion or will of a UN body. Resolutions follow a common, relatively strict format and are published online once approved. They are written and approved (or rejected) in a complex process. They typically go through several drafts, and multiple countries are typically involved, though a single country may write a draft resolution on its own and seek a direct vote. You will navigate an abbreviated version of this collaborative process in your role-play.

A Security Council resolution has three sections:

The entire resolution is one long sentence; individual items are separated by semicolons and commas. The header gives the date, an alphabetical list of countries that have contributed to the document (sponsors), and the name of the issuing body (in this case, the Security Council). This body serves as the subject of the sentence.

Preambular clauses provide a framework through which to view the issue by outlining past action on the subject (usually in treaties, conventions, and previous resolutions) and explaining the purpose of or need for a resolution. Preambular clauses are unnumbered, begin with adjectives or verbs, and end with commas. Common preambular words include

An example of an existing preambular clause is

Operative clauses state the opinion of the organ and the actions to be taken. Unlike preambular clauses, operative clauses are sequentially numbered and follow a logical progression, each clause calling for a specific action. Operative clauses begin with italicized verbs, sometimes modified by adverbs, and end with semicolons (with the exception of the last clause). Common operative words include

The last operative clause in a Security Council resolution is almost always “Decides to remain seized of the matter.” In line with Article 12 of the UN Charter, this language keeps the issue under the Security Council’s authority and prevents the General Assembly from taking its own action. An example existing operative clause is

Click here to see a full example of a UN Security Council resolution.

If the Security Council is unable to come to agreement on a resolution, another option is to issue a presidential statement.

What is a presidential statement?

A presidential statement is made by the president of the Security Council on behalf of the council. It is adopted at a formal council meeting, issued as an official document, and published. No formal vote is taken on a presidential statement; instead, it is adopted by consensus (the agreement of all members, though some may abstain). Member states have the option of voicing opposition to the statement, which is then recorded in the document. Often released when the council cannot reach consensus on a resolution or is prevented from passing one by a permanent member’s veto, presidential statements are similar in content and tone to resolutions but tend to be less specific. They are not legally binding.

All presidential statements generally follow the same loose structure, which is more flexible and relaxed than that of a UN resolution:

Click here to see a full example of a UN Security Council presidential statement.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.