Youth, Peace and Security: Vote on a Draft Resolution*
This afternoon (12 December), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution on youth, peace and security (YPS) under the agenda item “Maintenance of international peace and security”. The draft text was authored by Guyana and Sierra Leone.
The draft resolution in blue aims to promote engagement by member states, the Security Council, and other UN entities on the YPS agenda. Among other things, it encourages member states to consider adopting or strengthening national action plans on YPS and encourages continued coordination between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) on YPS as part of a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding and sustaining peace. The draft text in blue also encourages members of the Security Council to consider holding expert-level discussions on YPS and to support the safe participation of youth briefers in Council meetings.
Background
If adopted, the draft text will be the Security Council’s fourth resolution on YPS. This week marked the tenth anniversary of the Council’s first resolution on the issue, resolution 2250 of 9 December 2015. Spearheaded by Jordan, the resolution recognised the contribution of youth to the prevention and resolution of conflicts. Subsequently, resolution 2419 of 6 June 2018, authored by Peru and Sweden, urged stakeholders to facilitate young people’s equal and full participation in peace and decision‑making processes. Resolution 2535 of 14 July 2020—co-penned by the Dominican Republic and France—aimed at institutionalising the implementation of the YPS agenda by the Security Council, UN entities, and member states. The resolution introduced regular reporting on YPS, requesting the Secretary-General to submit a biennial report to the Security Council on the implementation of resolutions 2250, 2419, and 2535.
The draft text proposed by Guyana and Sierra Leone is shorter than the previous three resolutions; these members apparently did not seek to add many new elements, but rather to advance the Council’s engagement on YPS and promote the implementation of existing commitments. Members supportive of YPS apparently feel that the Council’s limited and inconsistent attention to the agenda has constrained its potential to deliver sustained and meaningful youth engagement in peace and security efforts. For instance, the Secretary-General’s biennial reports submitted pursuant to resolution 2535 remain underutilised due to the absence of dedicated discussions within the Council to consider their findings and recommendations. The first biennial report, issued on 16 March 2022, was addressed at an Arria-formula meeting (an informal format), while the second report, published on 1 March 2024, was discussed during a ministerial-level debate on “The Role of Young Persons in Addressing Security Challenges in the Mediterranean”, organised by then-Council member Malta. (For background and more information, see our 20 December 2024 research report titled “Future of the Pact: Recommendations for Security Council Action”.)
The co-penholders also apparently aimed to build on the momentum generated on YPS in several recent intergovernmental processes, including the Pact for the Future, the outcome document of the 2024 Summit of the Future. In the Pact, member states committed to taking concrete voluntary measures to increase the inclusive representation of youth in decision-making at all levels in conflict prevention and resolution efforts. Many member states also raised considerations relating to youth in the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR) process. The twin resolutions on the 2025 PBAR, adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council on 26 November, subsequently urged efforts to ensure the full, effective, and meaningful participation of youth in the design, monitoring, and implementation of peacebuilding efforts at all levels. (For more information, see the In Hindsight in our February 2025 Monthly Forecast and 24 November What’s in Blue story.)
Negotiations on the Draft Resolution
The negotiations on the draft resolution were long and difficult. The main area of disagreement centred on proposals by the co-penholders aimed at addressing gaps in both implementation and political commitment to YPS. The first was to request the Secretary-General to submit an annual, rather than a biennial, report on the implementation of the Security Council’s YPS-related resolutions and for the Council to hold annual open debates to discuss the reports. The second proposal was to establish an Informal Expert Group (IEG) of members of the Security Council on YPS.
The Council’s permanent members (P5) apparently strongly opposed these proposals. These members argued against adding such tasks while the UN is facing a liquidity crisis and against the backdrop of the UN80 initiative. There were variations in the approaches of the P5 members, however. While France and the UK are generally supportive of the YPS agenda—with France having co-penned resolution 2535—these members were apparently still concerned about incurring additional expenses through the establishment of the IEG and the mandating of open debates in connection with the Secretary-General’s reports on YPS. The US, for its part, emphasised that the proposed provisions go against its view that the UN should “go back to basics”. It seems that China and Russia’s approach was also informed by their traditional view that YPS is a thematic issue not directly relevant to the Security Council’s agenda and one that can be more appropriately addressed in other UN bodies.
The Council’s elected members (E10) were apparently generally supportive of the penholders’ initiative for a resolution on YPS, albeit to varying degrees. It seems that some E10 members felt that the timing may not be right for the initiative, considering the current climate in which the focus is on not asking more of the UN system.
The co-penholders apparently consulted with all Council members before circulating the initial draft of their text on 29 October. After one round of in-person negotiations on 31 October and two revisions of the text, the co-penholders placed the second revised text under silence until 21 November. The US broke silence, after which the rest of the P5 members reiterated their comments. Guyana and Sierra Leone then put a third revised draft under silence until 24 November, which all P5 members broke over the provisions relating to the IEG and the open debates.
On 25 November, the co-penholders convened a discussion under “any other business” with the aim of finding a way to overcome the impasse. At the meeting, Guyana and Sierra Leone apparently explained the importance of the resolution, particularly for Africa, which is home to the youngest population in the world. They subsequently put a fourth revised text under silence until 4 December, which China and the US broke, while the rest of the P5 members submitted comments. After additional consultations with the relevant delegations, the co-penholders put a fifth revised draft in blue on Tuesday (9 December), and a vote was scheduled for this afternoon.
During the negotiations, the co-penholders had to weaken several provisions in order to address the concerns of the P5 members. The initial draft of the resolution called for an annual report from the Secretary-General on the implementation of YPS-related resolutions and an annual open debate on the agenda. Due to opposition by the P5 members, these provisions were replaced in subsequent drafts with language calling for strengthening the consideration of the YPS agenda in the Council’s work, including through biennial open debates to discuss the Secretary-General reports submitted pursuant to the existing reporting requirement contained in resolution 2535. It seems that the P5 members were still uncomfortable with specifying the frequency of the open debates, leading to the removal of the word “biennial” in the fourth revised draft.
In breaking silence on the fourth draft, China apparently noted that it preferred to not have language that commits the Council to automatically hold an open debate once the Secretary-General’s report on YPS is submitted. It seems that other P5 members, such as Russia, supported this position, which was nonetheless not taken on board. In its silence break, the US apparently sought to soften some provisions. Eventually, the draft resolution in blue decides to “continue”, rather than “strengthen”, the consideration of the YPS agenda in the Council’s work, including through open debates to discuss the Secretary-General’s reports submitted pursuant to resolution 2535.
The initial draft resolution also included a provision deciding to convene meetings of an IEG on YPS. This was aimed at facilitating a more systematic approach to the issue within the Council’s work through discussion on YPS-related considerations in country-specific contexts and to allow greater oversight of implementation efforts. It seems that the co-penholders envisioned a role for the UN Youth Office as the Secretariat of the IEG on YPS, similar to the role played by UN Women in the IEG on women, peace and security (WPS). They apparently argued that there would be no extra costs to the UN’s budget since the IEG would be funded by extra-budgetary funds. It also seems that the UN Youth Office informed the co-penholders that it can support the IEG within existing resources. This provision was nonetheless unacceptable to the P5 members. As a result, the draft resolution in blue only encourages Security Council members to consider holding expert-level discussions on YPS, including in relation to country-specific contexts, but does not establish an IEG on YPS.
Other provisions also had to be weakened or removed to achieve compromise. For instance, language calling on the UN Youth Office to provide technical assistance to member states and UN peace operations was removed at the request of some P5 members. Text calling on the UN Youth Office to continue to cooperate with relevant UN entities, including the Security Council, in advancing the YPS agenda was softened by replacing “calling” with “encouraging”. Additionally, references to “youth-led organisations” were removed at the request of China, who apparently argued that this term lacked clarity. It seems that other members, like Denmark, would have liked to see the retention of such references.
Some language was also amended at the request of some E10 members. For instance, text in the initial draft resolution recognising youth’s vulnerability to recruitment by armed groups and extremists, which some members found problematic, was replaced in the draft resolution in blue with language reiterating the important role that youth can play as agents of change in countering terrorism and violent extremism.
__________________________________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 12 December, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2807 on YPS. The resolution aims to promote engagement by member states, the Security Council, and other UN entities on the YPS agenda. Among other things, it decides to continue the consideration of the YPS agenda in the Council’s work, including through open debates to discuss the Secretary-General’s biennial reports on YPS submitted pursuant to resolution 2535 of 14 July 2020.
