Statement by Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Executive Director, Security Council Report at the Arria-formula Meeting on the Implementation of Security Council Resolutions
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you to the co-organisers for the invitation to participate in this discussion on strengthening the implementation of Security Council decisions.
For the over twenty years, Security Council Report has closely followed and reported on the negotiation and adoption of Security Council resolutions. Those negotiations are often complex, politically demanding, and sometimes highly contentious. Yet following up on implementation has proven even more difficult.
Our reporting suggests that the implementation gap is often most acute in situations where the Council repeatedly reaffirms core demands but is unable to secure compliance on the ground.
This issue is becoming even more relevant at a time when divisions within the Council have become more pronounced. In the past, it was relatively unusual for peacekeeping mandates, sanctions regimes, or thematic resolutions not to have the support of all Council members. Today, resolutions are increasingly adopted with abstentions and, in some cases, significant unresolved disagreements.
This raises an important question: does the degree of political support behind a resolution affect the likelihood of its implementation?
Consensus is not a guarantee of implementation, and disagreement does not necessarily preclude it. But Council unity can help generate consistent political messages, sustained engagement, and collective pressure on parties. The relationship between Council unity and implementation may be a good topic for future research.
Let me briefly highlight the challenges of implementation in four categories of Council peace and security resolutions.
First, peace operations
Peace operations are one of the few areas of the Council’s work where a relatively robust implementation architecture exists. The Council receives regular reports, hears periodic briefings, renews mandates, requests strategic reviews, and adjusts mission priorities as circumstances evolve. Implementation is also subject to scrutiny by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee.
Yet implementation challenges persist. Good mandate design may be the starting point for addressing some of these challenges. Mandates need to be realistic, prioritised, and achievable. The High-Level Panel on Peace Operations (or HIPPO) report highlighted this more than a decade ago, and some progress has been made; but the issue is even more relevant today in the context of budget constraints and competing demands. In this context, at the design stage, greater attention could be paid to the costs of mandated activities.
Sustained engagement with stakeholders on the ground throughout the life cycle of a mission also helps to promote political backing for mandates, maximizing the chances of successful implementation and smoother transitions.
Second, sanctions regimes.
Sanctions are among the Council’s most closely monitored tools. Committees, panels of experts, and regular reporting provide extensive information on violations and implementation challenges.
The problem is often not a lack of information. Rather, it is inconsistent enforcement, limited capacity, and disagreements among member states regarding the objectives or effectiveness of sanctions.
Recent delays in appointing chairs and vice-chairs of subsidiary bodies have highlighted another challenge. Implementation depends not only on the quality of mandates but also on the ability of the structures supporting them to function effectively. Prolonged reduced inactivity can reduce opportunities for oversight, engagement, and follow-up.
Council members should consider putting in place safeguards to reduce the impact of disruptions to the functioning of its sanctions committees and working groups. SCR will be publishing an In Hindsight on this topic in our July Monthly Forecast with a few suggestions.
Third, thematic mandates.
Over the past two decades, the Council has developed extensive normative frameworks on issues such as children and armed conflict, women, peace and security, and protection of civilians.
The children and armed conflict agenda demonstrates the value of effective follow-up mechanisms. Through the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism, the Secretary-General’s annual reports, the listing process, and the Working Group on CAAC, the Council has established one of its most developed implementation frameworks. These tools have not completely eliminated violations, but they have helped sustain Council attention, identify gaps, and contribute to concrete outcomes, including the release of more than 220,000 children from armed forces and groups over the past three decades.
However, a well-developed framework is not enough. A recent SCR research report on protection of civilians highlights the gap that can emerge between normative commitments and realities on the ground. Monitoring mechanisms matter, but they cannot substitute for political will. The lesson is not that monitoring guarantees implementation, but that implementation is difficult to assess—and even more difficult to advance—in the absence of dedicated follow-up mechanisms.
Finally, crisis-response resolutions
In situations of acute crises, the Council has adopted resolutions calling for ceasefires, humanitarian access, or the protection of civilians. Yet these resolutions are rarely accompanied by dedicated arrangements for monitoring implementation or responding to non-compliance.
Recent resolutions on Gaza and Ukraine illustrate this challenge.
Future crisis-response resolutions could benefit from clearer follow-up provisions, including requests for timely reporting on implementation and options for Council consideration.
This brings me to my final point: the relationship between reporting and implementation.
The Council already receives a steady stream of information. The challenge is not the absence of information. The challenge is whether that information helps the Council assess implementation and determine what action is required.
More focused and strategic reporting could help bridge this gap. Rather than attempting to cover every development, reports could focus more directly on progress against mandate objectives, obstacles to implementation, and feasible options for Council action.
Equally important is consistent Council follow-up. Mandate renewals, strategic reviews, sanctions committee meetings, consultations, informal interactive dialogues, and Arria-formula meetings all provide opportunities to assess implementation and consider adjustments where necessary.
Many of these improvements could be most likely be achieved without significant additional resources.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Council should be measured not only by the resolutions it adopts, but by the extent to which those resolutions are implemented and achieve their intended objectives. Implementation needs to be viewed not as a discrete event, but as a continuous process requiring sustained attention, oversight, and political commitment.
Thank you.
