Conflict Prevention and Peaceful Resolution of Disputes
Expected Council Action
In July, the Security Council will convene an open debate on “Strengthening the mechanisms for peaceful settlement of disputes”. The meeting will take place a year after the Council’s high-level open debate on “Promoting International Peace and Security through Multilateralism and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes”, which Pakistan convened during its July 2025 presidency. At that session, the Council adopted resolution 2788 of 22 July, authored by Pakistan, which requested the Secretary-General to provide, one year following the adoption of the resolution, concrete recommendations to further strengthen mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Secretary-General António Guterres is the anticipated briefer.
Background and Key Recent Developments
Resolution 2788 was adopted against the backdrop of a deteriorating global peace and security landscape. According to the 2026 Global Peace Index (GPI), global peacefulness declined for the twelfth consecutive year in 2025, with armed conflict remaining the principal driver. The report noted more active state-based conflicts than at any point since the Second World War. In addition, 103 countries had been involved in an external conflict between 2021 and 2025, up from 59 recorded in the 2008 GPI for the preceding five-year period.
The unanimous adoption of resolution 2788 was therefore seen as a timely reaffirmation of the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. The resolution urged member states to make greater use of mediation, negotiation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and other peaceful mechanisms. It also encouraged stronger preventive diplomacy, enhanced cooperation between the UN and regional organisations, greater support for the Secretary-General’s good offices and mediation capacity, and more inclusive conflict prevention efforts involving women and youth.
Since then, the need to make better use of Chapter VI tools has been reiterated on several occasions. At a 27 April open debate on the safety and protection of waterways in the maritime domain, convened under Bahrain’s presidency, many member states stressed that the escalating crisis in the Strait of Hormuz underscored the importance of dialogue, preventive diplomacy, and the peaceful settlement of disputes in addressing threats to international peace and security. During the open debate, Guterres argued that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz required “restraint, dialogue, and confidence-building” and that “the way forward is through peaceful settlement, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of Chapter VI of the UN Charter”.
At a 26 May high-level open debate on upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and strengthening the UN-centred international system, convened under China’s presidency, many member states reaffirmed the importance of the Charter’s principles, respect for international law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes amid growing geopolitical tensions. Guterres stressed that member states must invest more in conflict prevention, including by pursuing peaceful means of settling disputes, as urged by the Council in resolution 2788.
On 10 June, the Council held a high-level open debate titled “Advancing Political Solutions in the Middle East: Mediation and Dialogue for Lasting Peace” under Colombia’s presidency. Referring to resolution 2788, Guterres reminded member states that the Council had urged them to make greater use of the peaceful means of dispute settlement set out in Chapter VI, stressing that the conflicts in the Middle East could not be resolved through military means but required political solutions, dialogue, and diplomacy. He added that the UN stood ready to support such efforts through its good offices. In his remarks, Guterres expressed gratitude to Pakistan, which mediated an agreement in an effort to end the US-Iran war, for its “active mediation” in the Gulf crisis.
The Council has also continued to support the use of Chapter VI tools through renewals of Special Political Mission (SPM) mandates and regular briefings by the Secretary-General’s Special Representatives (SRSGs) and Personal and Special Envoys on preventive diplomacy, good offices, mediation, confidence-building, political dialogue, and other related measures in a range of conflict-affected settings. For decades, these mechanisms have been the UN’s principal instruments for the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, in his May 2026 UN80 Progress Report, Guterres cautioned that multiplying conflicts, deepening geopolitical divisions, and growing impunity for violations of international law were increasingly constraining the effectiveness of these preventive tools by narrowing the political space for mediation and diplomacy. He indicated that the ongoing review of UN peace operations would propose updated approaches to SPMs and other political instruments to better respond to today’s conflict landscape, leaving it to the General Assembly and the Security Council to determine how such proposals should be taken forward.
Key Issues and Options
A central issue for the Security Council is how to move from rhetorical support for preventive diplomacy to ensuring more consistent use of the Council’s Chapter VI powers. Resolution 2788 represents a laudable effort to operationalise the commitments contained in Action 16 of the 2024 Pact for the Future, but it faces many of the same implementation challenges that have historically constrained UN preventive diplomacy, including inconsistent political support for the use of Chapter VI powers. The gap between adopted Council resolutions and their implementation was the focus of an Arria-formula meeting convened by China and Pakistan on 23 June. During the meeting, member states underscored the importance of sustained political commitment, effective follow-up, and oversight to translate Council resolutions into action. In the context of resolution 2788, this suggests that implementation would benefit from regular Council reporting and follow-up beyond the Secretary-General’s anticipated briefing in July.
Another important issue for the Council is ensuring effective early warning. While resolution 2788 emphasises the importance of early warning in preventive diplomacy, the Council has long been unable to translate this commitment into consistent practice. Over the years, Council members have tried various informal briefing formats, such as situational awareness briefings and horizon-scanning sessions, to facilitate discreet discussion of emerging risks before they escalate. More recently, such briefings have been regularly organised by the E10. However, these initiatives often lapse owing to concerns among some members that they could pave the way for these issues to be added to the Council’s formal agenda. Council members may wish to consider ways of ensuring greater frequency and consistency in the convening of early-warning briefings. They may also wish to develop evidence-based risk criteria, thereby reducing perceptions of selectivity while preserving needed flexibility.
More recently, Council members have developed informal visiting missions as an alternative means of early engagement. Unlike official Security Council missions, which require consensus and UN funding, these visits are organised and financed by individual member states or groups of members. In a politically divided Council, this represents a pragmatic innovation. The Council may wish to consider continuing this and other informal consultation practices that enable members to gather first-hand information, engage with relevant stakeholders and encourage dialogue in the spirit of Articles 33 and 34 in contexts where formal Council action is not feasible.
A related challenge concerns the functioning of the Council’s sanctions committees. Political deadlock over the annual allocation of subsidiary body chairs has delayed the work of these committees, limiting opportunities for chairs to engage directly with affected states and undertake visits that provide valuable first-hand information on the implementation and humanitarian impact of sanctions. Council members may wish to consider procedural arrangements that facilitate the timely appointment of subsidiary body chairs so that these bodies can continue to perform their monitoring, information-gathering, and preventive functions without interruption.
At a time when global military spending continues to soar, projected to more than double—from $2.7 trillion in 2024 to an astonishing $6.6 trillion by 2035 if current trends persist—a key issue for the Council is how to ensure that the UN is adequately equipped to lead preventive diplomacy and support the peaceful settlement of disputes. During the extrabudgetary donor meeting of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) on 16 June, Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo explained that a decline for the third consecutive year in DPPA’s extrabudgetary funding, which supports, among other preventive initiatives, a standby team of senior mediation advisers and related backstopping functions at UN Headquarters, has had tangible consequences. She presented a $44 million target for 2026 with a current gap of $23 million. Council members may wish to encourage greater support for DPPA’s funding appeal, recognising its role in the implementation of resolution 2788.
Council members may also wish to consider ways of promoting strengthened cooperation with regional and sub-regional organisations and local actors, recognising their comparative advantages in early engagement and preventive diplomacy. Such partnerships, envisaged in both the Pact for the Future and resolution 2788, offer a cost-effective means of strengthening the implementation of preventive mandates. The forthcoming annual joint consultative meeting with the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC), scheduled to take place in New York in October, offers an opportunity to deepen such discussions. Members may wish to discuss these issues in a more informal setting, such as the informal seminar held alongside the 2024 consultative meeting.
Equally important is stronger cooperation with the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) as called for by the twin resolutions on the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR), particularly in situations where the PBC’s complementary role can help sustain attention and engagement beyond what the Council, given the demands on its agenda, is able to provide.
Council Dynamics
While Council members agree that the peaceful settlement of disputes is central to the 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 differing views on follow-up to resolution 2788. Some members are willing to support regular reporting as a way to sustain attention, assess implementation, and ensure that the Council’s renewed emphasis on Chapter VI translates into practice. Others are more cautious about institutionalising a regular reporting cycle, raising concerns about the budgetary implications of new reporting requirements.
| Security Council Resolutions | |
| 26 November 2025S/RES/2805 | This resolution on the 2025 UN Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR) underscores peacebuilding as essential to lasting peace and development, refocusing efforts from policy commitments to measurable, coordinated implementation benchmarks across the UN system and at the country level. |
| 22 July 2025S/RES/2788 | This resolution urges member states to effectively utilise the UN Charter’s mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. |
