Humanitarian Intervention in South Sudan in 2014 (UNSC) — Student

Set in May 2014. Rival South Sudanese factions have fought a civil war since the end of 2013, causing mass displacements, tens of thousands of deaths, and widespread hunger. Negotiations between the leaders of these factions—President Salva Kiir and rebel commander and former Vice President Riek Machar—are stalled, and South Sudan’s dry season approaches, signaling intensified fighting and a humanitarian crisis of potentially historic proportions. Already, about two million South Sudanese have been driven from their homes, and food shortages and health needs have grown acute. Observers fear an eventual famine. Although a United Nations peacekeeping mission is present in South Sudan, the response to the crisis has been criticized as being ineffective. Meanwhile, South Sudanese civilians are suffering. Accordingly, the president of the UN Security Council has called a meeting to address the ongoing situation: to consider how to bolster existing peacekeeping operations, what additional steps to take to establish peace, and whether to authorize unilateral or multilateral humanitarian interventions by UN member states.

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.

After decades of bloodshed, South Sudan won independence in 2011. However, it soon descended into crisis. Despite having large oil reserves that could fuel a strong economy, South Sudan emerged as one of the world’s least developed countries. Its government was dysfunctional. Political and ethnic rivalries between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar caused the government to effectively collapse in late 2013, plunging the country into a civil war marked by ethnically targeted attacks. 

In the opening months of the conflict, it quickly became clear that the violence could lead to a severe humanitarian crisis. By April 2014, more than one million people had been driven from their homes and, as food shortages grew acute, nearly one-third of the country’s population were at severe risk of starvation.

A UN peacekeeping mission had been present in South Sudan since 2011. After the outbreak of the civil war, the UN Security Council quickly voted to nearly double the mission’s size to nearly 14,000 troops. However, the new crisis still risked escalating beyond what the peacekeeping force was prepared for. Other countries, including members of the UN Security Council, faced pressure to consider launching their own humanitarian interventions to establish or maintain peace and ensure access to humanitarian aid. Such interventions would be guided by the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. R2P was adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2005 after they failed to prevent a number of genocides. According to this doctrine, countries have a responsibility to intervene in other countries in cases of crimes against humanity or genocide. However, this norm is not legally binding and its use in some cases has been controversial. Still, the underlying principles of R2P could provide a basis for the United States to take action in South Sudan.

Decision Point—Set in May 2014

South Sudan is in its fifth month of civil war. So far, all attempts to reach a ceasefire have quickly failed. Recent reports suggest the war reached a new level of violence after South Sudanese opposition forces took control of the northern city of Bentiu and killed hundreds of civilians there. It seems likely that fighting will continue to escalate, subjecting civilians to more violence and possibly even leading to genocide. At the same time, drought, destruction, and the loss of the agricultural workforce will reduce South Sudan’s already scarce food supplies. The result is predicted to be a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions. 

In this context, the United Nations faces significant pressure to act. Although the Security Council has passed a number of resolutions concerning the civil war and reinforced existing UN peacekeeping forces on the ground in South Sudan, analysts are questioning whether the UN response is sufficient to bring peace. Meanwhile, South Sudanese civilians are suffering. Accordingly, the president of the Security Council has called a meeting to address the ongoing situation: to consider how to further bolster existing peacekeeping operations, what additional steps to take to establish peace, and whether to authorize unilateral or multilateral humanitarian interventions by UN member states.

Historically, the region in and around South Sudan has struggled with harsh geography, an unforgiving climate, an underdeveloped economy, and dysfunctional, often feuding, governments. South Sudan’s huge oil deposits have fallen under mismanagement and the threat of violence. The oil wealth has not benefited most of the South Sudanese people. Given these factors, even in peacetime the population of South Sudan has lived on the edge of a humanitarian disaster. 

The crisis that broke out in 2013 has its roots in South Sudan’s decades-long struggle for independence from Sudan. For the first half of the twentieth century, Sudan was a colonial territory under joint British and Egyptian rule. Under this arrangement, Sudan was effectively treated as two separate regions: a mostly Muslim north and a largely Christian or animist south. When Sudan gained its independence from colonial rule in 1956, these divisions—and questions of control over natural resources—became a source of simmering tension. Almost immediately after Sudan gained its independence, southern Sudanese groups rebelled against the government in Khartoum. 

The two regions reached a fragile peace in 1972, which granted southern Sudan a degree of autonomy. But just over a decade later, southern groups rose up again over violations of the peace settlement. This second civil war was marked by intense violence against civilians. Rough estimates place the war’s death toll as high as 2.5 million people, mostly civilians.

Sudan’s second civil war ended in 2005. As part of the peace deal to end the war, the south was given a chance to vote on whether to become an independent country. Six years later South Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence. Salva Kiir, the head of the main southern rebel group, became South Sudan’s first president. He appointed a rival militia leader, Riek Machar, as his vice president. Machar represented the Nuer ethnic group (making up 16 percent of the population). Kiir represented the Dinka (36 percent). Relations between these groups, which are South Sudan’s largest ethnicities, had deteriorated over previous decades. Kiir believed that Machar’s appointment would help unify the new country. 

However, tensions quickly emerged in the new country. The two leaders disagreed over how to distribute oil profits. Kiir wanted the profits to flow into the central government. However,  Machar said they should go to South Sudan’s individual states. (Machar’s home state of Unity has some of the nation’s richest oil fields.) Additionally, Kiir took steps to bolster his executive powers, whereas Machar argued for power to be less centralized. 

Concerned that these tensions could lead to conflict, the UN Security Council voted to establish a peacekeeping force in the country. The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) tasked nearly 9000 personnel with supporting South Sudanese government forces in maintaining peace. Still, the new country faced grave challenges ahead.

In mid-2013, Kiir launched a series of investigations and suspended several high-ranking government officials. He portrayed the investigations as anticorruption measures, but the move was widely denounced as an attempt to strengthen his hold on power by removing potential threats. Claiming his rivals were plotting a coup, Kiir fired his entire cabinet, including Machar. Machar had declared that he would challenge Kiir in the next presidential election. 

In December 2013, violence erupted in Juba, South Sudan’s capital, between ethnic Dinka and ethnic Nuer soldiers in the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), then South Sudan’s national army. The resulting firefight killed at least five hundred people, including civilians. As Dinka soldiers moved to massacre Nuers, Nuer militias retaliated in kind.

This resulted in thousands of executions. Nuer soldiers mutinied and deserted across the country. Machar fled Juba, rallying a rebel Nuer army. Since then, violence has continued across South Sudan, primarily between the SPLA, loyal to Kiir, and Machar’s rebel forces. Other militias have also conducted attacks, which have caught civilians in the crossfire.

This conflict disrupted the livelihood of millions of South Sudanese by severely threatening agriculture, on which many rely to support themselves and their families. Many farmers were forced to abandon their fields or face violence from the warring parties and loosely affiliated gangs.  Constant disruptions to South Sudan’s agricultural production sparked a food crisis leading 2.5 million people to face starvation. 

The waves of violence gripping South Sudan drew widespread outrage. U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the outbreak of fighting in December 2013. The UN Security Council also voted to nearly double the size of the peacekeeping mission that had been stationed in the country. Despite this, the civil war raged on and efforts to negotiate a ceasefire continued to fail. Policymakers grew increasingly concerned that the worst of the conflict was yet to come.

The United Nations has maintained a significant presence in Sudan and South Sudan throughout the twenty-first century. Shortly after the Sudanese government and the South Sudanese  signed the Peace Agreement in 2005 to end the Sudanese Civil War, the UN Security Council authorized a peacekeeping mission. This mission was authorized to support the implementation of the agreement and provide humanitarian assistance to the area. After South Sudan gained independence in 2011, the United Nations established the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to support the new country in establishing peace and security. Immediately after the civil war broke out in 2013, UNMISS shifted its focus to the protection of civilians. 

The top priority for the UN Security Council in this situation was preventing atrocities and reducing the violence and loss of life in South Sudan. Many observers have criticized the United Nations for its responses to past humanitarian crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide or the 1995 genocide in Bosnia. Observers argued that the peacekeeping forces in those areas were mismanaged and should have done more to prevent atrocities. In response, the United Nations adopted the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P). This doctrine established a norm for robust international intervention in cases of crimes against humanity or genocides that a national government cannot or will not stop. The norm is nonbinding—meaning that member states are not legally required to abide by it—and its application to specific situations is often disputed [PDF].

As the Security Council deliberated how to respond to the outbreak of violence in South Sudan, member states needed to balance the desire for a timely response to a crisis with the need to secure support from as many council members as possible, especially permanent members. The Security Council had three main options to consider as it formulated a response to the crisis.

Call for Negotiations

The Security Council could call on the South Sudanese government and rebel leaders to enter peace negotiations. Although previous attempts at negotiations had so far failed, a new round could restart the peace process with the help of UN mediators or through the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which facilitated regional negotiations in the past. A call for negotiations would offer a way to respond quickly to the situation at hand. This could allow  the United Nations continued debate on other measures. However, UN Security Council members could not guarantee that the warring parties would respond to such a call. Security Council members would also need to consider what, if any, measures they could take to prevent the negotiations from breaking down as previous ones have. This would be the least ambitious option. It would also be the most likely to garner consensus among member states. Should calling for negotiations be ineffective the United Nations could be criticized for inaction and negligence.

Strengthen the Existing Peacekeeping Mission 

The UN Security Council could attempt to bolster the effectiveness of existing peacekeeping operations. The Security Council could do so by requesting that member states provide additional troops and resources—heavy military materiel such as helicopters and armored tanks—to UNMISS. This option would entail adopting a resolution raising the UNMISS force levels beyond the existing ceiling. It might also consist of improving the capability of forces to protect civilians and establish reliable access to humanitarian aid. 

The Security Council could also seek to expand the mandate of UNMISS beyond the protection of civilians. It could consider authorizing peacekeepers to use force to ensure access to humanitarian aid entering the country. The role of UNMISS could also be expanded to facilitate the voluntary return of displaced persons. Expanding the mandate would allow UNMISS to address the conflict while helping to relieve human suffering. Moreover, this option would fall under the umbrella of existing operations and would therefore be more likely to pass if voted on by Security Council member states.

Deploying additional peacekeepers or expanding the mission mandate could increase UNMISS’s abilities to improve conditions in South Sudan. However,  the option would come with significant costs and risks. UN member states could be reluctant to put their military personnel at risk by contributing additional forces to the mission. Moreover, greater numbers would not guarantee that UNMISS would be better able to achieve its goals. Finally, the government of South Sudan could reject an expanded UNMISS mandate.

Call for Military Intervention

In the most extreme option, the Security Council could issue a resolution declaring an immediate cease-fire and calling for military intervention, either by multinational forces such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by regional organizations such as the African Union. Such an intervention would be considered legitimate under a Security Council resolution that would presumably invoke the R2P doctrine as its rationale.

Similar to the UN Security Council resolution that authorized international intervention in Libya in 2011, this option would authorize UN member states to use all methods necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. The resolution could also impose additional conditions. These conditions could include an arms embargo, travel bans on South Sudanese nationals, and a freezing of assets owned by South Sudanese authorities. Such an intervention would avoid the risks and costs of strengthening UNMISS forces while promising better-trained and better-supplied forces that could establish peace and ensure access to humanitarian aid more effectively. If Security Council members chose this option, they would also have to consider the end goals of any military action. For instance, would the intervention be considered a success if it simply stopped the fighting, or would the intent be to establish a new government or an international trusteeship? 

This option could be the most effective at changing conditions on the ground in South Sudan but would also be the most difficult to implement. First, for such an operation to be successful, several countries would need to be willing to intervene in South Sudan. Even if countries were willing, the Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent members have each blocked similar resolutions in the past. Permanent members could also be reluctant to authorize action in this case. Finally, a military intervention would not necessarily be successful or popular. The 2011 intervention by NATO-led forces in Libya was widely considered a failure and drew significant criticisms from UN member states. Members made assertions that the UN mandate was vague, the military planning incoherent, and the underlying motivations sinister. 

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.

Recognizing the deteriorating situation, the UN Security Council voted in May 2014 to revise the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). The Council decided on authorizing peacekeepers to protect civilians, assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid, actively prevent violence, and monitor human rights violations. Crucially, the revised mandate allowed UNMISS personnel to use greater force to achieve its mandate. For the moment, the force’s size remained at the 12,500-troop ceiling that had been set earlier in the year. 

Despite its revised mandate, UNMISS struggled to have significant influence on the trajectory of the conflict. South Sudan’s civil war would continue to rage for more than five years after its outbreak. Peace talks continued on and off but fighting often resumed after each round of meetings. In August 2015, IGAD successfully mediated a cease-fire agreement signed by both parties. However, the cease-fire was shattered in July 2016 and Kiir- and Machar-aligned forces resumed fighting once more.

The renewed violence that year prevented farmers from planting or harvesting crops, causing severe food shortages in the country. In July 2014, the UN Security Council declared South Sudan’s food crisis the “worst in the world.” In February 2017, the United Nations and some government agencies declared famine in parts of the country, with nearly five million people at risk from food insecurity. Food insecurity has continued and even worsened to this day. In 2023, more than 7.7 million people, or two-thirds of the population, faced severe food insecurity—the worst hunger crisis the country has ever faced.

The resurgence in violence in 2016 drew criticism of UNMISS for being ill-prepared to fulfill its mandate. Consequently, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dismissed the commander of the UN peacekeeping force over his failure to adequately protect civilians. The next month, the Security Council authorized the deployment of an additional four thousand peacekeepers to UNMISS. This raised the total number of Peacekeepers to 17,000. However, the deployment of the force was delayed until May 2017 due to the South Sudanese government’s reluctance to allow them in the country. 

In June 2018, the UN Security Council passed an arms embargo on South Sudan aimed at cutting the supply of weapons to both parties. Under increasing international pressure to negotiate, Kiir and Machar met for the first time since 2016 and signed an IGAD-brokered peace deal. The meeting resulted in a power-sharing agreement in which Machar would return as vice president. The revitalized peace agreement reduced violence in many regions of South Sudan. It also improved the ability of humanitarian groups to supply aid. South Sudan made economic improvements by resuming its stalled oil production. 

The peace process moved slowly. It took nearly two years for the country to successfully form a unity government. Important components of the peace agreement, such as appointments to state governorships, were even slower to be implemented, and remained as potential sources of continued tension. Observers have expressed skepticism about the durability of this agreement and stress that—despite the progress toward peace—South Sudan’s humanitarian crisis has yet to abate. Accordingly, UNMISS remains in the country to help support the durability of the peace deal. Reductions in violence have enabled the force to focus more of its efforts on ensuring access to humanitarian aid and monitoring adherence to the peace deal. 

Many analysts have criticized the United Nations for not responding swiftly and robustly enough to address the crisis in South Sudan. Many highlight high profile failures in peacekeeping, such as the inability of UNMISS forces to cope with the outbreak of violence in Juba in 2016. Others have criticized the UN Security Council’s slow decision making on matters such as the arms embargo; the idea had been on the table since 2016, but only passed two years later. At that point, critics argued that the embargo had come too late to have a serious effect and risked jeopardizing peace negotiations. 

Still, fully evaluating the success of the United Nations response to the civil war in South Sudan is difficult. Many have defended UNMISS, arguing that despite its challenges, the operation saved potentially hundreds of thousands of lives. South Sudanese civilians have claimed that, “without UNMISS there would have been a genocide.”

Ultimately, observers worry that the current peace in South Sudan is not guaranteed to last. Many of the tensions that fueled civil war in South Sudan remain, and instability elsewhere in the region could spread or divert international resources and attention away from South Sudan. Should the current peace break down into renewed civil war in the future, the UN Security Council could once more face a decision of whether and how to step in.

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.