Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Open Debate on “Promoting International Peace and Security through Multilateralism and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes”
Distinguished Minister,
We would like to thank the delegation of Pakistan for organizing this open debate on strengthening international peace and security through multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We are grateful to the Secretary-General for his briefing. We supported the resolution crafted by our Pakistani colleagues in this regard.
The process of finalizing this document was hampered due to attempts by certain members to politicize the issue. We note the efforts of the sponsors of the initiative, who ultimately did not give in to these attempts, nor did they allow this resolution to become a platform for the UN Secretariat to promote conflict prevention mechanisms that are beyond the control of Member States.
Both the meeting and the document adopted are intended to put a spotlight on the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes, which is something that the Russian Federation attaches great importance to. States are obliged to settle their disputes through means and mechanisms agreed upon between them. This is the goal that has formed the cornerstone of the United Nations since it was established.
At the same time, we are convinced that international peace and security can only be ensured through strict and conscientious observance of all principles of international law in their entirety and inextricable interconnection. And it is of utmost importance that these principles are implemented in good faith. However, certain states have opted for ignoring this premise and deliberately politicizing mechanisms for dispute settlement, which not only engenders increased tensions in international relations, but may also cause irreversible damage to the activities of the most important judicial and arbitration institutions.
The peaceful settlement of international disputes, which is the subject of today's discussion, is enshrined in Chapter VI of the UN Charter. This principle is reaffirmed in a number of authoritative consensus-based documents of the General Assembly, including the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law and the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.
Article 33 of the UN Charter provides for a wide range of tools, including negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Sovereign States are free to choose any peaceful means for settling disputes. Neither certain means nor a combination thereof can be imposed on countries. The Security Council's has the right to recommend appropriate solutions to the parties, but this right should be exercised pragmatically, with due regard for the specifics of each situation, as well as with a deep understanding of the historical and regional context and the root causes of the dispute.
We stand convinced that without adherence to the principles of good faith and mutual consent of the parties, no effective dispute settlement is possible in principle. Obviously, if lacking consent of one or both parties, decisions by mechanisms tend to be illegitimate in nature and will not be enforced.
What’s equally important are the principles of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. Any form of external pressure, manipulation of procedures, and selective approaches are likely to undermine the authority of international mechanisms, boiling them down to instruments of geopolitical battle. Such degradation is clearly exemplified by what is being done by international criminal justice institutions, which the international community used to pin hopes on at some point.
In this regard, our common objective now is to shield the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the United Nations, from abuse and manipulation. The ICJ’s authority and effectiveness directly hinge on its independence and impartiality, which are the qualities that the ICJ has managed to preserve despite attempts by certain actors to drag it in dubious political adventures. The Court’s increased workload attests to the high level of trust that States place in this body. At the same time, the ICJ’s funding remains completely incommensurate with its importance and size, nor with the scope of the tasks entrusted to it. We deem it fundamentally important to provide the ICJ with the necessary support from Member States, especially in light of the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative. We call for the redistribution of resources to those bodies that are genuinely working to strengthen international law. In this regard, the International Court of Justice is undoubtedly a body that deserves support.
Mr. President,
The issue of conflict prevention, mediation, and “good offices” tends to be one of the most popular topics at the UN, and it is a priority for many States and the UN Secretariat. At the same time, we observe a paradox: while supporting these principles in word, States in conflict are often reluctant to delegate these powers to the UN, as they view this as interference in their domestic affairs, and the UN itself is gradually ceding ground as the most active mediator in international conflicts, citing a lack of influence or geopolitical contradictions.
Another example here is the “early warning” principle, which was also reflected in the resolution adopted today. We do not support this concept, since in most cases it was harnessed to justify the need to intervene in a situation for political reasons that serve the interests of only one single group of countries.
We stand convinced that the effectiveness of the UN Secretariat's efforts on preventive diplomacy is rooted in trust. Many countries are openly questioning their impartiality, refusing to host missions on their territory. Some States view those missions as externally imposed mechanisms promoting agendas that are divorced from national priorities and consider them, as minimum, useless — or, which is worse, as a tool of coercion. We believe that, when it comes to these countries, the UN failed to properly address concerns regarding sovereignty and national leadership there. We have no doubt that, in order to tackle this problem, the Secretariat and its field missions must return to genuine impartiality as per Articles 100 and 101 of the UN Charter.
Furthermore, the UN efforts should not be overloaded with objectives that serve some ideological agenda of any group of countries. In no way do we deny the importance of activities in such areas as peacebuilding, gender equality, combating sexual violence, development assistance, and climate change mitigation. However, these issues cannot be at the center of the UN's political mediation efforts. It is high time for us to realize that there are no universal “indicators” of conflict. Unfortunately, this issue does come up again and again – let’s look, for instance, at the efforts by Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers, who focus precisely on these issues of secondary importance.
Another trend of late is chronic disregard for and non-compliance with agreements reached through peaceful efforts, including UNSC resolutions. It is not enough to conclude agreements – they must be implemented. Examples abound – what happened with the Minsk agreements, which were signed (according to European leaders) to buy time rather than implement them. This is the most glaring example of the failure conflict prevention.
Another important element of peaceful dispute settlement, which we should attach significance to, is making sure that we use credible data. The spread of unverified information, and sometimes outright disinformation, through the media and NGOs has become a hallmark of our times. Such biased data often find the way into UN documents and are actively used by UN staff. We must stop this trend.
Thus, various means of peaceful dispute settlement provide States with ample opportunities to resolve differences arising between them. However, the desired outcome can only be achieved if these means are applied in good faith and in a coordinated manner by all parties to the dispute themselves, without any external solutions imposed on them. We are sincerely interested in restoring the central role of the United Nations in maintaining peace and security through peaceful means, with the UN Security Council having the primary responsibility in this regard. We hope that both the Secretariat and the Council will draw the requisite conclusions in a timely manner.
Thank you.
