Are UN Resolutions Binding?

Background

The United Nations (UN) plays a crucial role in promoting peace, security, and cooperation among nations. One of the primary tools at its disposal is the adoption of resolutions, which carry significant weight in international law.

On Monday, the UN passed Resolution 2728 (2024) which demanded a temporary ceasefire in Gaza. While the wording of the resolution is quite clear, there appears to be some purposeful obfuscation from the usual suspects.

White House National Security Council Spokesman, John Kirby, at an immediate press conference said:
“It’s a non-binding resolution, so there’s no impact at all on Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas.”

Is he correct?

When the UN passes a resolution, it is considered legally binding on all member states. This means that member states have an obligation to comply with the resolution and take appropriate actions to implement its provisions. By joining and participating in the United Nations, member states agree to uphold the resolutions.

Now what?

When a member state chooses to ignore a UN resolution, it raises serious concerns about its commitment to international law and the principles of the UN. While the UN does not possess a direct enforcement mechanism, there are several consequences that can be imposed on members who disregard resolutions:

1. Diplomatic Pressure: The international community can exert diplomatic pressure on the non-complying member state through various means, such as issuing statements, imposing sanctions, or reducing diplomatic relations. This can isolate the country and damage its reputation on the global stage.
   

2. Economic Sanctions: The UN Security Council has the authority to impose economic sanctions on member states that fail to comply with resolutions. These sanctions can include trade restrictions, asset freezes, and travel bans, which can have severe economic and political consequences for the non-complying state.
   

3. Peacekeeping Operations: In some cases, the UN may deploy peacekeeping forces to ensure compliance with resolutions. These forces can be authorised to use necessary force to maintain peace and security, thereby compelling the non-complying state to adhere to the resolution.
   

4. Legal Consequences: In extreme cases, the non-complying member state may face legal consequences at the international level. This can include referral to the International Criminal Court or other international tribunals for violations of international law.
   
   

The problem

While parties to the UN are expected to abide by its resolutions, what happens when a key member chooses to ignore them?

A precedent was set in 1986, when the International Court of Justice found the United States guilty of aggression against Nicaragua for deploying The Contras and mining Nicaraguan ports. The court ordered the US to cease its aggression and pay war reparations to Nicaragua, but they have never been paid.

The US response was to declare that it would no longer recognise the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ, effectively setting itself beyond the rule of international law.

The current crisis has highlighted the requirements for a shake-up of the UN. By disregarding a UN resolution, a member state undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the system as a whole. If no enforcement is taken, then the United Nations is a paper tiger, and we need something else. Unfortunately, those who abuse its limits will be likely to try and maintain their position of invulnerability, in which case, perhaps they shouldn't be invited to take part.

It could be argued that by ignoring the resolution, the current politicians are causing significant harm to not only their own credibility, but the standing of their countries and the future of our society as a whole.
If they will not honour their obligations to the UN, would they honour their obligations to NATO?

Even if it meant direct war with another superpower?

In the meantime, the destruction continues.




UN RESOLUTION 2728 (2024)

Resolution 2728 (2024) Adopted by the Security Council at its 9586th meeting, on 25 March 2024

The Security Council,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all of its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Reiterating its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and in this regard deploring all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism, and recalling that the taking of hostages is prohibited under international law,

Expressing deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,

Acknowledging the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States, aimed at reaching a cessation of hostilities, releasing the hostages and increasing the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid,

1. Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain;
2. Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023);

3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.