Conflict Prevention and Peaceful Resolution of Disputes
Expected Council Action
In July, the Security Council will convene a high-level open debate on “Promoting international peace and security through multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes”. Pakistan, the Council president in July, is convening the debate as one of its signature events. Senator Muhammad Ishaq Dar, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, will chair the meeting. UN Secretary-General António Guterres is expected to brief. The meeting, organised under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item, is expected to highlight concerning trends of protracted and unresolved disputes that threaten international peace and security, and to call for reinforced collective efforts to address them.
Pakistan aims to adopt a resolution in connection with the debate urging member states and the UN Secretariat to make full use of all Chapter VI mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations, in line with Action 16 of the Pact for the Future.
Background and Key Recent Developments
The peaceful settlement of international disputes is rooted in fundamental principles of public international law—sovereignty, non-interference, and the prohibition of the use of force—and is enshrined in Chapter VI of the UN Charter and the Hague Conventions on Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
A broad coalition of states has recently emphasised the need for more robust pursuit of peaceful dispute resolution. Action 16 of the Pact for the Future, adopted by world leaders attending the Summit of the Future in September 2024, calls for political backing and allocation of adequate resources to the tools Chapter VI envisages—negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Action 16 also calls for early-warning mechanisms and facilitation of confidence-building among parties to a conflict through the Secretary-General’s good offices, and emphasises cooperation with regional partners to ensure transparent, inclusive and rules-based resolution of conflicts.
The Council’s most recent resolution on conflict prevention was 2171 of 21 August 2014. It requested the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Council on actions taken to “promote and strengthen conflict prevention tools within the United Nations system” by 31 August 2015. Since then, the Secretary-General has been keeping the Council informed of UN preventive diplomacy efforts primarily through the mandated reports of special political missions and biennial reports on peacebuilding and sustaining peace.
Presidential statement S/PRST/2021/23 issued on 16 November 2021, following a high-level open debate chaired by the President of Mexico, remains the Council’s most recent formal outcome on conflict prevention. It expressed the commitment of the Security Council to interact with other UN organs with regard to preventive diplomacy tools and mechanisms, while also recognising the importance of investing in peacebuilding for sustaining peace in the longer term.
In October 2023, Brazil convened a high-level open debate on conflict prevention as one of the signature events of its presidency. It was titled “Peace through dialogue: The contribution of regional, sub-regional and bilateral arrangements to the prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes” and was organised under the Council’s agenda item on “Maintenance of international peace and security.”
The Council has also continued to incorporate cross-cutting discussions on conflict prevention into its “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace” agenda item, recognising the increasing role of the UN peacebuilding architecture in conflict prevention. For example, in March 2024, Japan—serving as Council president—organised an open debate on “Promoting conflict prevention – Empowering all actors including women and youth” under the “Peacebuilding and sustaining peace” agenda item. During the meeting, the then Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), Ambassador Sérgio França Danese (Brazil), expressed the Commission’s readiness to continue providing member states with the political space to discuss their prevention strategies and to advise the Security Council ahead of its consideration of countries that are undergoing conflict or transitioning from conflict.
Alongside these debates, Council members have organised several informal, off-site early-warning exchanges with PBC Chairs, drawing on briefings by academics, policy experts, and practitioners. These discussions—co-hosted by the UK and Brazil in 2023 and by the UK, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Sierra Leone in 2024—have apparently helped participants better anticipate conflict risks in different regions. Over the years, several other similar initiatives were discontinued—partly because some members were reluctant to discuss issues not formally on the Council’s agenda.
The growing emphasis on peacebuilding as a prevention tool is also reflected in the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations on the 2025 peacebuilding architecture review, which is expected to be finalised between October and December. From the outset, a growing chorus of member states has argued that the PBC should become the principal forum for the voluntary presentation of national prevention strategies, therefore complementing the conflict prevention work of the Security Council.
Key Issues and Options
A key issue for the Council is how the upcoming debate can generate actionable ideas to strengthen preventive diplomatic tools—leveraging the Secretary-General’s good offices and other Chapter VI mechanisms—amid constrained political space and shrinking UN budgets. A related challenge is securing agreement on a new resolution that could provide a framework for advancing some of these ideas.
The Council could strengthen partnerships with coalitions of member states such as the Group of Friends of Mediation, co-chaired by Finland and Türkiye, as well as with regional organisations and mediation actors, to broaden diplomatic channels for peaceful dispute resolution and, where appropriate, mobilise resources in support of the UN’s role in these efforts. The proposed draft resolution—expected to request an annual report from the Secretary-General on conflict prevention—could help the Council to institutionalise accountability and sustain focus on peaceful measures.
Another key issue is sustaining early-warning initiatives. The Council may wish to consider continuing the practice of informal early-warning briefings for Council members and PBC chairs with a view to anticipating conflict risks and mobilising collective action. When pursuing such initiatives, it is worth considering research showing that the wealth of information generated by the UN’s human rights system may indicate growing risks of violent conflict. The Security Council can gain insights into conflict precursors by requesting more frequent input from, and supporting the work of, human rights actors where appropriate.
A third key issue is strengthening structural prevention through closer linkages with peacebuilding initiatives. The Council can deepen its engagement with the PBC—especially as the UN peacebuilding architecture undergoes review in 2025—by systematically requesting and drawing on PBC advice during conflict prevention deliberations and relevant mandate renewals.
Council and Wider Dynamics
Pakistan’s emphasis on fully utilising Chapter VI mechanisms, which appears to be an impetus for its signature event on conflict prevention, reflects its underlying concern about perceived unilateral acts that risk escalating conflicts. For example, at the Council’s emergency session on Iran on 22 June, Pakistan cautioned that Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities risked further escalation, urging recourse to dialogue and diplomacy. The open debate is also taking place just over two months after the emergency closed consultations on the India-Pakistan question, held on 5 May 2025 at Pakistan’s request to discuss rising tensions following the 22 April Pahalgam attack, which exposed the fragility of deterrence and escalation control mechanisms between the two nuclear-armed states. (For more information, see our 5 May 2025 What’s in Blue story.)
While Council members broadly affirm the principle that the peaceful settlement of disputes is central to the Security Council’s mandate to maintain international peace and security, divisions persist over how rigorously the Council should promote dispute-settlement mechanisms. Some members underscore strict respect for state sovereignty and insist that any mediation must have explicit consent from the parties, while others argue that the Council has a responsibility to encourage or even recommend recourse to third-party mediation or arbitration when disputes risk escalation, even if one party is initially reluctant.
There are also different views over the scope and timing of early-warning and preventive engagement. Some members are concerned about overreach or politicisation of early-warning methodologies and favour narrow criteria for when the Council intervenes—arguing that upstream diplomacy should be led by regional organisations or bilateral actors unless a dispute imminently threatens wider peace. Others advocate for more proactive, Council-led horizon-scanning and informal consultations to identify nascent conflicts and assertive decision-making.
Members also diverge on linking dispute-settlement efforts to emerging domains and cross-cutting issues. A number of states caution against expanding the Council’s role into areas such as cyber disputes, climate-related transboundary tensions, or resource conflicts, viewing them as outside the traditional remit of interstate dispute resolution or better addressed through specialised fora. In contrast, proponents argue that contemporary disputes increasingly overlap with these new challenges and that the Council should develop tailored tools.
| Security Council Resolutions | |
| 21 August 2014S/RES/2171 | This resolution requested the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Council on actions taken to “promote and strengthen conflict prevention tools within the United Nations system” by 31 August 2015. |
| Security Council Presidential Statements | |
| 16 November 2021S/PRST/2021/23 | This emphasised the importance of a comprehensive approach to sustaining peace, recognised the contribution of the UN’s principal organs to the maintenance of international peace and security, and expressed its continued commitment to fostering regular interactions with other principal organs, in accordance with their respective mandates, on matters relating to preventive diplomacy tools and mechanisms. |
