Arria-Formula Meeting of the Security Council on Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

I think in the interest of time, we should start at the hour. So Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, on behalf of Ambassador Fu Chong of China and myself, I have the honor To welcome all of you in this Arya Formula meeting of the Security Council on Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and Maintenance of International Peace and Security, that is co-organized by the Permanent Missions of China and Pakistan. Colleagues, the authority of the Security Council rests not only in the adoption of its resolutions but in their faithful, timely, and non-selective implementation. Today's discussion provides an opportunity to reflect on how the Council can better translate its decisions into action, strengthen prevention, and ensure that its resolutions contribute effectively to durable peace. We are grateful to our distinguished briefers for joining us and for sharing the their perspectives on this important issue. And I would like to begin by giving the floor to our first briefer, Mr. Khalid Kihari, Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific, Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Department of Peace Operations. You have the floor.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Excellency Ambassador Fu Cong, and Your Excellency Ambassador Assim. Ahmad, for convening this ARIA Formula meeting on an issue that sits at the very heart of our collective quest for international peace and security. Let me begin by saying that United Nations Charter is clear. The primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rests with the Security Council, and all member states have undertaken the obligation to accept and carry out the Council's decisions. It is widely acknowledged that what you have said at the beginning, Ambassador, a lack or selective implementation of Council decisions weakens the multilateral orders, the credibility of the Councils, the respect for international law and conflict prevention and resolution efforts. On behalf of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Department of Peace Operations, I take the opportunity to share some thoughts on how we could work together— the Council, the wider United Nations membership, and the Secretariat— on enhancing implementation of Security Council decisions in three specific areas: peace operations, sanctions, and preventive diplomacy. First, UN peace operations, comprising, as you know, Peacekeeping operations, special political missions, remain one of the most versatile and effective tools of the Organization for maintaining international peace and security. Consistent political support from Member States and other stakeholders is critical for effective implementation of mandates. This applies, first and foremost, to the Council itself. It means ensuring that there are clear, agreed-upon political goals for a mission to achieve, which receive consistent and active political support. These are not new ideas. They have been a recurring theme since the Brahimi Report 25 years ago. The lesson is consistent: peace operations succeed in implementing their mandate when international regional and national actors are pulling in the same direction, and struggle when they are not. Diplomatic support carried by broad coalitions of member states can make the difference in crucial moments. This was a central feature of successful peace operations experiences such as Timor-Leste, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Nepal, to name a few. Attaining and maintaining such support has become increasingly difficult as geopolitical shifts reshape the environments in which missions operate, with long-term political solutions remaining out of reach. In parallel, the financial liquidity crisis has impacted the operational capabilities of our missions, with consequences to be felt over an extended period of time. While expectations on the implementation of mandates remain the same. The Secretary-General will soon present his report on the review of the future of peace operations, as requested in the Pact for the Future. The review is guided by a fundamental premise: the challenges facing our missions are primarily political, not technical. The report will put forward strategic and action-oriented recommendations to strengthen peace-making, deepen partnership with OSCE states, and make mandates more focused, realistic, and adaptable to changing conditions on the ground. We hope that these recommendations will provide Member States with a common basis for building consensus on how to adapt peace operations to today's realities. Second, I turn to the issue of sanctions imposed through resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. The sanctions committees provide standing mechanism for follow-up the Council decisions across the 15 sanctions regime in place. Panels of experts remain essential to monitoring implementation. Their evidence-based reporting informs committee decision-making and supports the Council in maintaining the effectiveness and continued relevance of sanction measures. This enables the Council to adjust sanctions design in response to evolving situations. As is the case of other mandates, sanctions measures require periodic substantive reviews to ensure that they remain relevant and fit for purpose. Additional tools such as visits by Committee chairs and Implementation Assistance Notices help strengthen practical implementation by Member States, including on exemptions. Ultimately, The effective implementation of sanctions rests with Member States, who give effect to Council decisions through national legislation and enforcement mechanisms. Providing targeted assistance to Member States lacking capacity or resources to implement sanctions measures is also important. Sanctions, however, do not succeed or fail in a vacuum. They are most effective when applied as part of a comprehensive strategy to support political objectives set by the Council. Third, when Council resolutions seek to prevent or resolve disputes, their non-implementation risks not just short-term escalation but also long-term entrenchment of conflicts. Chapter VI matters should be met with— by a proactive posture focused on dialogue, de-escalation, and trust-building. Where a Chapter VI resolution remains unimplemented or where a dispute is formally brought to the Council's attention, the Council has a wide range of mechanisms at its disposal, including, as foreseen in Articles 33 and 34 of the Charter. Many of these mechanisms have been underutilized and could be further explored in order to foster a more active Council role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Council members have a special responsibility to seek avenues for continued dialogue even and especially on the most difficult issues on its agenda. The good offices of the Secretary-General, discharged through envoys and representatives, as well as other Secretariat officials, are an impartial vehicle to help forge common ground. The lesson for us is that we must take risks even where implementation is difficult. As we know, there is political value in the UN continuing to try even where efforts are likely to fail. Being present and active allow us to identify possible entry points for advancing Council decisions. Excellencies, work Underway in the Secretary-General's UN80 Initiative's Workstream 2 promises to strengthen mandate stewardship through stronger mandate discipline. Improved transparency and focus will certainly help better align and rely Secretariat and Member State efforts on mandate implementation, as long as accompanied by the requisite political will. Thank you.

Thank Mr. Carey for his very informative briefing, and I now give the floor to Ms. Shyamala Kandya Thompson, Executive Director of Security Council Report. You have the floor.

Thank you.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to the co-organizers for inviting me to participate in this discussion on strengthening the implementation of Security Council decisions. For just over 20 years, the Security Council report has closely followed and reported on the negotiation and adoption of resolutions, and these negotiations are often complex, politically demanding, and quite often highly contentious now. 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. And 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, automatic 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 implementation? Consensus is not a guarantee of implementation, and disagreement does not necessarily preclude it. But Council unity can help generate consistent messages sustained engagement, and collective pressure on parties. This relationship between Council unity and implementation may be a good topic for future research.

I will—

I'd like to just briefly highlight now the challenges of implementation in 4 categories of Council peace and security resolutions. And our first speaker has covered a couple of these areas, but I'm going to look more specifically at certain aspects of it. So first, the peace operations. And this is one of the few areas where the— of the Council's work where there is a relatively robust implementation architecture. The Council receives regular reports, hears periodic briefings, renews mandates, requests strategic reviews, adjusts mission priorities, as circumstances evolve. Implementation is also subject to scrutiny by the General Assembly's Fifth Committee. And yet implementation challenges persist. And good mandate design may be the starting point for addressing some of these challenges. Mandates need to be realistic, prioritized, and achievable. And the High-Level Panel on Peace Operations, or HIPO, over 10 years ago now, this report highlighted that all of these things were needed, and some progress has been made since then, but the issue is even more relevant today in the context of budget constraints and competing demands. And in this context, at the design stage, greater attention could be paid to the costs of mandated activities. In addition, sustained engagement with stakeholders on the ground throughout the life cycle of a mission also helps to promote political backing of mandates, and, and it maximizes 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. So the problem is not a lack of information. Rather, it is inconsistent enforcement, limited capacity, and disagreements among member states regarding the objectives, effectiveness, and— or effectiveness of sanctions. And the recent delays in appointing chairs and vice chairs of subsidiary bodies have highlighted another challenge. Implementation demand 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 substitute bodies such as the sanctions committees and working groups. Then third, thematic resolutions. Over the past two decades, the Council has developed extensive normative frameworks on issues such as children in armed conflict, women, peace and security, and the protection of civilians. The children in armed conflict agenda demonstrates the value of effective follow-up mechanisms. Through its monitoring and reporting mechanism, the Secretary-General's annual reports, the listing process, and the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict, the Council has established one of its most developed implementation frameworks. These tools have not completely eliminated violations, however. Although they have helped to sustain Council attention, identify gaps, and contribute to concrete outcomes, including the release of more than 220,000 children in the past 3 decades. However, a well-developed framework is not enough. A recent SAR 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. And finally, the crisis response resolutions that the Council adopts. In situations of acute crisis, the Council has adopted resolutions calling for ceasefires, humanitarian access, or the protection of civilians. And yet these resolutions are rarely accompanied by dedicated arrangements for monitoring, the implementation or responding to non-compliance. Recent resolutions on Gaza and Ukraine, for example, illustrate the challenge, and future crisis response type resolutions could benefit from clearer follow-up provisions, including requests for timely reporting and the— or on implementation or on options for Council consideration. And this brings me to my final point, which is on the relationship between reporting and implementation. As you've heard, the Council already receives a lot of information, so the challenge is not in the absence of information, but it's whether the information helps the Council assess implementation and determine what action is required. More focused and strategic reporting could help to bridge the gap. Perhaps 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 ARIA Formula meetings like this one, they are all opportunities to assess implementation and consider adjustments where necessary. Many of these improvements could most likely be achieved without significant additional resources. And ultimately, the effectiveness of the Council should be measured not only by the resolutions it adopts, but by the extent to which these 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. I thank you.

Thank you so much, Shamala, for that informative briefing. I now give the floor to our last briefer. Mr. Richard Govan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions at the International Crisis Group. Please.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I thank China and Pakistan for the opportunity to brief this ARIA Formula Meeting on behalf of the International Crisis Group. The problem of the implementation of Security Council resolutions is both old and urgent. To illustrate how old it is, I simply note that a student at the University of Chicago wrote a thesis on the non-implementation of Council resolutions in 1950, when the Council was just 5 years old. To illustrate how urgent it is, we only need to look at situations around the world, ranging from Sudan to Gaza and DPRK to Myanmar, where conflict parties have ignored Council resolutions. There is little doubt that such failures add up to damage the credibility of the Council, not only in the individual cases involved, but more generally. We believe that Council members need to address this implementation gap proactively by incorporating what peace scholars call an implementation perspective into your negotiations. This means that it is not enough for the Council to wordsmith resolutions and then leave it to others, whether peacekeepers, aid officials, or member states, to turn words into deeds. Instead, it is necessary to engage in pragmatic discussion of how any given resolution can be turned into action and what a realistic level of ambition for the UN may be. This can be diplomatically difficult. The art of negotiating Council products will always rely on a little strategic ambiguity. In our experience, Council members often trade away proposals for implementation mechanisms in draft resolutions to get agreement on a text. This can mean that a resolution passes but does not include the practical elements necessary to put it into effect. What a more effective implementation perspective looks like will vary case by case. It often means drawing on the expertise of the UN system. Let us take the example of humanitarian aid. The Council has often been seized of humanitarian issues in recent years, sometimes in cases where it cannot agree on how to resolve a conflict. In some crises, as over Syria in the mid-2010s, the Council has worked closely with UN officials to backstop effective aid delivery mechanisms. In other cases, as in debates over Gaza in late 2023, Council discussions of aid have become enmeshed in broader political games. In these debates, diplomatic considerations can drown out humanitarian concerns. After one 2023 resolution on aid to Gaza passed, a smart diplomat remarked that the text would not save lives but might help protect the Council's reputation. In retrospect, the Council's decision to pass resolutions on humanitarian aid that could not be implemented both damaged the body's reputation and tragically failed civilians in need. Similar lessons hold true around UN peace operations. Decisions around mandates need to reflect political and security realities on the ground. On occasion, Council members seem more interested in adding well-intentioned language to mandates than assessing those realities. But it is possible for diplomats in New York to engage in more practical discussions of operational challenges. Members demonstrated this last year during the renegotiation of the mandate for the UN stabilization mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which involved a serious, if difficult, exchange over the conditions for UN ceasefire monitoring in the province of South Kivu. And let me break for a moment from my prepared remarks to welcome this morning's resolution on the accountability for crimes against peacekeepers. It is a good one. Now, if council members have a responsibility to consult with UN experts, we would also encourage UN officials to be proactive in putting options before the council. 15 years ago, council ambassadors referred to the secretariat as the 16th member due to close collaboration. We do not hear that these days. The UN system needs to be bolder offering ideas. In parallel with blue helmet operations, we should note that the Council has of late chosen to back non-UN-led missions in cases including Haiti and Gaza. Crisis Group advocated for these deployments, but standing up these one-off forces involves a host of administrative, logistical, and legal complexities that delay implementation. Council members should scope out these hurdles in advance and keep a watchful eye on how these forces are deploying and performing. Performing. Particular problems also pertain regarding sanctions resolutions, as the other briefers have said. Past studies have emphasized that member state officials and private sector actors frequently lack the expertise, bandwidth, or resources to implement UN sanctions correctly. This can lead not only to gaps in sanctions regimes, but also to over-compliance, an issue that the Council tried to ease with Resolution 2664. As Crisis Group has warned, these technical issues around implementation are now frequently exacerbated by political rifts within the Council over the purpose and scope of sanctions regimes. There is a need for a more serious strategic discussion of the uses of UN sanctions if these tools are to be a constructive part of the Council's armory rather than a recurrent source of friction. And yet, the biggest obstacle to the implementation of UN resolutions is the refusal of governments and non-state armed groups to heed the recommendations and demands of the Council. As I mentioned at the outset, conflict parties have been ignoring the Council since its inception. But we are now at a geopolitical juncture in which many states and groups believe that they can brush off the Council's injunctions, and indeed international law more generally, with impunity. They are often right. This Council is frequently divided, and a divided Council has limited leverage. Even when the Council is united, it can struggle to bring recalcitrant conflict parties into line. Naming and shaming these parties can backfire, as it can make them more resistant. The Council can threaten states with consequences for non-compliance with a resolution, as it did in cases including Iraq in 2002, Syria in 2011 and Libya in 2011. But the efficacy of these threats is dubious. In both the cases I mentioned, the Council's warnings fell on deaf ears and military action followed. As recent debates over how to persuade Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz have confirmed, some members are averse to repeating similar threats today. So what is left? For Crisis Group, the answer remains diplomacy. But diplomacy beyond New York. It is still possible for states and other actors, including the UN, to mediate, negotiate, and persuade in conflicts. In some cases, Council members will be directly involved, as our host Pakistan has recently been in the Middle East. Elsewhere, other peacemaker— peacemakers will take the lead. The role of the Council in such cases is often to support the efforts of these peacemakers by sending well-timed political signals and, when the time is right, codifying agreements in resolutions. States are more likely to implement those resolutions if they enjoy the backing of regional brokers, middle powers, and other weighty actors. The Council can be one of those actors if it pragmatically calibrates its debates and resolutions to both reflect and shape the realities of the crises that it faces. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. Very useful thoughts, and I would say a number of overlapping ideas in the three briefings that we have just heard, and in terms of the various resolutions that are there that relate to peacekeeping or prevention mandates or sanctions and other situations. It's basically about implementation, and I think the, the common element that I find in the three briefings is that implementation of resolutions is central to the credibility, effectiveness, and preventive role of this Council, and whether that is achieved then from within the Council or actors inside or outside the Council, I think the primary objective is to achieve the implementation of those resolutions. Colleagues, before giving the floor to Council members, we will now proceed to remarks by co-hosts. I have the honor to invite His Excellency Ambassador Fu Chong, Permanent Special Representative of China to deliver his remarks.

Thank you, Ambassador Ahmad. China is pleased to jointly convene this ARRIA Formula Meeting with Pakistan. I thank Assistant Secretary General Kiyari Director Thompson and Director Gowan for their briefings, and welcome all colleagues to today's meeting. Security Council resolutions are an important tool for the Council for maintaining peace, preventing conflict, and resolving disputes. They embody the collective will of the international community. Their importance lies not only in their adoption but also in their implementation. Lack of effective implementation will not only undermine the Security Council's authority, but also squander the international community's willingness and efforts to resolve issues, and may even lead to worsening crises and escalating conflicts. In a phase of intertwined changes and upheavals in today's world, The international community must make greater efforts in implementing Security Council resolutions. I'll make 4 points. First, we must firmly uphold the legal authority of Security Council resolutions. The effectiveness of Council resolutions is grounded in their legal status conferred by the UN Charter. They constitute obligations that all member states must fulfill instead of optional choices. All parties must adhere to Charter provisions, respect the legally binding nature of resolutions, and implement them fully, promptly, and without derogation, thereby upholding the UN's credibility through concrete actions and safeguarding the seriousness and authority of its resolutions. No country should apply double standards in implementing resolutions out of its own interests, nor selectively implement provisions based on its own preferences. Second, we must strive to address the implementation deficit of Security Council resolutions. The Council should not only adopt resolutions but also promote their implementation. It should be seized of both emerging crises that require new resolutions and perennial issues that have defied existing resolutions. For resolutions whose effective implementation is long overdue, the Council should conduct necessary reviews. Obstacles in implementation should be studied and addressed. Outdated elements in resolutions should be promptly adjusted and updated. The UN Secretariat, missions, and Security Council subsidiary bodies are responsible for reporting to the Council in a timely manner on implementation progress, risks, and challenges as an objective basis for the Council's decision-making. The UN should strengthen coordination and cooperation with regional organizations to create sufficient synergy in implementing resolutions. Third, we must make Security Council resolutions more implementable. The drafting of Council resolutions directly bears on their effective implementation. Practice has shown that resolutions based on thorough consultations, accommodating the legitimate concerns of all parties, and reflecting broad consensus are more likely to gain international support and be fully implemented. Penholders should proactively engage in extensive consultations with Council members, countries concerned, and regional countries, as well as UN bodies during drafting, ensuring that their proposals are objective, impartial, and inclusive, and avoiding forcing drafts through the Council that are ostensibly contentious or lack broad support. Permanent members should lead by an example through communication and position alignment in advance of major resolutions to build consensus and reduce confrontation. Fourth, we must oppose unilateral actions without authorization by Security Council resolutions. Under the UN Charter, The Security Council is the only international body mandated to authorize enforcement measures. While faithfully fulfilling their obligations under Council resolutions, all parties must also uphold the Council's primary responsibility for international peace and security and respect its authority in authorizing enforcement measures. Any unilateral military action Bypassing Council authorization is unacceptable. Unilateral sanctions outside the scope of Council resolutions lack legitimacy. Attempts to sideline the UN Charter and the role of the Security Council must be resolutely opposed. Colleagues, as the Chinese saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Last year, at the pivotal historical juncture marking the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War and the founding of the UN, President Xi Jinping solemnly put forward the Global Governance Initiative, or GGI. The initiative emphasizes an action-oriented approach, essentially calling on all parties to take concrete steps to uphold multilateralism, reform and enhance the global governance system, and strengthen the role of the UN. As a permanent Council member, China will be guided by the GGI, continuously promote the full, effective, and timely implementation of Security Council resolutions, safeguard the role and authority of the UN and the Council, and work relentlessly to maintain international peace and security. Thank you.

I now give the floor to Ambassador Ahmed, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN.

Thank you, Ambassador Puchong. Excellencies, the true test of the Security Council is not the moment a resolution is adopted. It is the day after, the year after, and sometimes generations years after when the people in whose name this council acted, they ask whether its decisions changed their lives, whether it protected their rights, provided them justice, or brought them closer to peace. A Security Council resolution is not an end in itself. It is a promise of action, a legal obligation and a measure of the international community's resolve. So if implemented, it can prevent war, settle disputes, protect civilians, and restore faith in rule of law. And if ignored and unimplemented, it becomes evidence not of peace pursued, but of responsibility deferred and peace and security denied. And imperiled. The UN Charter is unambiguous. As was pointed out by briefers, Article 25 requires member states to accept and carry out decisions of the Security Council, and Article 2 requires obligations to be fulfilled in good faith. And these are foundation of collective security. And our briefers have rightly emphasized that implementation is central to the authority, legitimacy, and effectiveness of this Council. So the issue before us is not technical. It is political, legal, and moral. The Council's implementation record remains uneven. Some resolutions are backed by sanctions, monitoring, and regular review, while others, especially on peaceful settlement self-determination issues, foreign occupation, and conflict prevention are left without sustained follow-up. This selectivity weakens the Council's authority and prolongs unresolved disputes and conflict situations. And there are many examples. And one is the tragedy of Jammu and Kashmir. For almost 8 decades, the Kashmiri people have waited for the implementation of more than a dozen Security Council resolutions that recognize their right to determine their own future through a free and impartial plebiscite under the UN auspices. That is self-determination. These resolutions are solemn commitments of international community and binding obligations under the Charter, yet remain unfulfilled due to non-implementation. And this non-implementation means a major international dispute that remains unresolved, with consequences for international peace and security and prolonged human suffering for the Kashmiri people. The same lesson is visible elsewhere. For example, in case of Palestine, for decades Security Council and General Assembly resolutions have affirmed the rights of the Palestinian the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force, the illegality of settlement activity, the need to end occupation, and the vision of a Palestinian statehood. Yet the persistent non-implementation of these resolutions has produced a catastrophic reality where occupation has deepened, spread, settlements have expanded, civilians, especially women and children, continue to bear unbearable suffering. These two instances, along with many others across various parts of the world, whether covered by Security Council resolutions dealing with thematic issues or country-specific situations, uh, briefers mentioned many areas from Chapter 7 to Chapter 6 —sanctions, peacekeeping, conflict prevention, etc. And these— there are many examples. They demonstrate that implementation of Security Council resolutions must be treated as a central pillar of conflict prevention. And in recent years as well, Council has adopted many resolutions that address specific situations, but as was mentioned,— we could not ensure their effective implementation, and thus these resolutions, they kept on piling on the top of those that remain unimplemented for decades. The Security Council, in our view, will be more effective and credible if it follows through on its decisions, prevents disputes from entrenching, crises from recurring, and suffering from becoming perpetual. We would like to propose following concrete suggestions in this regard. First, the Council should institute an annual review of unimplemented and partially implemented Security Council resolutions, especially those related to longstanding disputes, foreign occupation, self-determination, protection of civilians and peaceful settlement. Such a review should be balanced, constructive, and action-oriented, focusing on what has been implemented and what remains pending, and what obstacles persist and what practical measures are required. Second, resolutions should include, where appropriate, a clear implementation pathway, timelines, reporting schedules, responsible actors, and periodic briefings. Adoption should mark the beginning of responsibility and not the end of attention. Council decisions must be followed by sustained diplomacy inside and outside the Council, structured review, and measurable progress. Third, the Council should give stronger institutional follow-up to Chapter VI resolutions and to decisions relating to mediation, prevention, and and peaceful settlement of disputes. In this regard, Security Council Resolution 2788, adopted under Pakistan's presidency last year, provides an important framework for strengthening the Council's preventive role and its mechanisms for peaceful settlement. By operationalizing these mechanisms, the Council can help ensure that its resolutions are not only adopted but implemented, and that implementation leads to durable peace. Fourthly, the Secretary-General's good offices, special political missions, peace operations, and regional arrangements should be better aligned to support the implementation of Council's decisions. These tools should sustain diplomacy, encourage compliance, identify obstacles, and alert the Council when agreed frameworks are ignored, delayed, or undermined. Fifth, the Council should respond when prolonged non-implementation enables unilateral actions, including measures that alter the status of disputed territories, violate agreed parameters and agreements, obstruct humanitarian access, or undermine prospects for peaceful peaceful settlement. And finally, implementation must be non-selective. The Charter cannot be defended in one crisis and disregarded in another. Selective implementation does not preserve international peace and security or international order. It corrodes it from within. It weakens the authority of this Council and diminishes the trust of member states in multilateralism. So colleagues, the implementation gap is where we need to move. Security Council resolutions must not be confined to archives. They must remain living instruments of peace, translated into action, carried into situations of crisis, and measured by the change they bring to people's lives. That is the responsibility responsibility before us to ensure compliance all the way from adoption to implementation. Council resolutions to be not only remembered as a promise the world made but as a promise the world kept. So let us act with political will, and this point was also highlighted, political will, courage, and objectivity to bridge the implementation gap. And strengthen international peace and security. Thank you for your attention.

I thank Ambassador Ahmad for his statement. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. First, I give the floor to the representative of Panama.

President, we are grateful to the delegations of China and Pakistan for convening this timely Security Council meeting in the area of formula. We thank the briefers, Mohamed Khaled Qari, Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, and Europe, America, Asia, and the Pacific. We're grateful to Shamala Kamiah Thompson, Executive Director of Security Council Report, and Richard Gowen, Director of the Global Affairs and Institutions Program of the International Crisis Group. We're grateful to them all for their invaluable contributions. Their briefings enrich our analysis and contribute to in-depth and detailed contemplation of the issue bringing us here today. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and in order to discharge this mandate, it adopts resolutions which establish obligations, measures, and mechanisms designed to prevent and resolve conflicts, to protect the civilian population, and to contribute to international stability. They are to be complied with as obligations by all member states. However, experience demonstrates that the adoption of a resolution is merely the beginning of a much more complex process. The speakers that have preceded us, particularly the briefers, have explained in resounding detail that this process is complex and that resolutions are just the beginning. Often, as has been indicated, the negotiations leading to adoption see Herculean diplomatic and political efforts converge. However, this same level of commitment is not always maintained during the implementation. Neither is proper contemplation given to the very architecture underpinning defining the resolutions. Often this architecture is not appropriate or sufficient to facilitate and guarantee resolutions implementation. This organ suffers no paucity of resolutions. Neither is there a lack of diagnoses regarding the causes of conflicts. What the Council does face, perhaps all too often, is the challenge— of sustaining over time the necessary political commitment and the desire to ensure that decisions arising from their work translate into tangible results on the ground. As such, the implementation gap cannot be understood solely as a technical or procedural challenge. Monitoring and follow-up mechanisms, the Council's subsidiary bodies, sanctions committees, and reporting systems play a crucial role in supporting the implementation of resolutions and in providing objective information to the Council regarding progress made and challenges that remain. However, No mechanism can replace the necessary political will to act on the basis of that information and to ensure, consequently, fulfillment of commitments made. As co-penholders on Haiti on the Security Council and as a country in the region, we reaffirm our commitment to the implementation of Resolution 2793 of 2025. We are convinced that resolutions only acquire their full value when they produce tangible results. We recognize the complex nature of the crisis facing Haiti and the limitations arising from the insecurity currently prevailing there. Precisely in light of the above, we are of the view that the implementation of this resolution is vital. To strengthen stability and meet the urgent needs of the Haitian people. The situation in Haiti lays bare the importance of remaining committed over time and the importance of ensuring a sense of shared responsibility on the part of the Security Council and the international community. The result of implementation Of this resolution and of the architecture underpinning it when the implementation of its initial phases is still recent and not yet complete is important. We hope that this architecture will prove successful. Elsewhere, 25 years after the adoption of Resolution 1325 of the year 2000 on women, peace and Security, significant progress has been made, as reflected in a legal framework which is robust, and as seen in the adoption of regional and national action plans and in the participation of women from civil society in the Council's deliberations. However, this progress coexists with persistent challenges and increasingly loud voices calling into question commitments that for years were considered a key and established consensus. Speakers referred to this very fact. In the last two years, we've seen obstacles that have hindered the smooth functioning of the subsidiary bodies of the Council. These have come up against the Council's working plans and its effectiveness and stymied both. This means that we need to contemplate whether we really have the political will of Security Council members to support the continuity of the work of the subsidiary bodies, and we need to duly consider the importance of that work and ask whether we're attaching sufficient importance to it. The discussion on the implementation of resolutions cannot perhaps be separated from broader contemplation of how effective this body is and about the tools that it has to discharge the mandate bestowed upon it by the Charter. We should consider whether a more representative and effective Council might be better placed to respond to today's challenges and to strengthen the decisions— the implementation, rather, of the decisions it adopts. Narrowing the gap between the decisions adopted by this council and the effective implementation thereof will remain a crucial endeavor to strengthen the United Nations' ability to achieve the purpose for which it was created, that is preserving international peace and security. Thank you.

Thank you.

The representative of Panama. Now I give the floor to the representative of Liberia.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairs. I thank the briefers for their important insights, all of which point to the supremacy of diplomacy, especially preventive diplomacy. And yet, as we all know, diplomacy not matched by political will to act is doomed to fail. As a nation whose history reflects both the hope of peace and the high cost of conflict, Liberia views the full implementation of Security Council resolutions as a binding obligation under the UN Charter. With 80% of Council resolutions over the last decade focusing on conflicts across Africa, our continent bears the heaviest burden when these decisions fail in practice. Leave civilians unprotected, push the conflicts into hopelessness and worsen conditions, and collectively leave our world less safe and insecure. These These failures stem from gaps in monitoring, inconsistent reporting, and limited accountability, which weaken the credibility of Council's decisions. Furthermore, the selective application of international law, as many of you, especially our briefers, have pointed out, which is becoming increasingly normalized, operate to strip the UN system itself of its authority and establishes dangerous precedent. To bridge this implementation gap, Liberia emphasizes 3 priorities. First, strengthening monitoring and reporting. And we can do this by embedding clear timelines, measurable benchmarks, and regular public briefings into all mandates. Second, improve accountability. Again, we can do this by enforcing clear consequences and targeted measures whenever violations persist. Third, enhance coordination. Surely we can do this to align resources and foster sustained cooperation among member states regional organizations, and UN entities. In closing, Chairs, bridging the implementation gap is a shared duty that requires urgent action. We therefore urge the Council to match its binding resolutions with decisive execution mechanisms. And I thank you for your kind attention. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Liberia. I now give the floor to the representative of Latvia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished co-chairs, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, I thank China and Pakistan for convening this ARIA Formula meeting and the briefers for their very informative briefings. Thank you. Security Council's credibility is measured not only by the number of resolutions it adopts, but by the extent to which its decisions are carried out. Implementation of all Council resolutions is where the authority of the Council meets reality on the ground. Article 25 of the UN Charter is clear: Member States agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Article 2, paragraph 2 further requires all members to fulfill their Charter obligations in good faith. In this context, I would like to make 3 points. First, implementation of Security Council resolutions is a legal obligation, not a matter of political convenience. When Council decisions are ignored, delayed, or applied selectively, the consequences are not abstract. This directly causes prolonged conflicts, higher civilian casualties, and obstruction of life-saving humanitarian aid. This is why the language of resolutions matters. The Council must adopt mandates that are clear and operational. All Member States have an obligation to implement Council decisions in good faith, and this obligation applies equally to all 15 members of the Council. While the permanent membership carries a special responsibility. Second, mandates adopted by the Council require particular attention and consistent follow-up. The implementation gap is not limited to situations of conflict. It also affects the daily work of the Council's subsidiary bodies, sanctions committees, humanitarian reporting, as well as monitoring and accountability mechanisms. We remain concerned that for the second consecutive year there have been significant delays in the allocation of chairs of subsidiary bodies. The lack of timely leadership in these subsidiary bodies has affected Council's ability to ensure continuity and oversight. This is not merely a working methods issue. It has real implications for sanctions regimes, expert panels, counter-terrorism work, humanitarian exemptions, and other mandates that depend on full, active, and responsible chairmanship. Ultimately, it leads to adverse consequences for the civilian populations who are meant to be protected by such instruments of the Council. Third, the Council's deadlock must not become a shield for non-compliance or impunity. The problem is not the absence of legal obligations, but the absence of political will to enforce them. The Council may be divided. Follow-up may be blocked. Further actions may be prevented by the veto. However, the Council's paralysis does not erase obligations under the UN Charter and international law. In this context, the veto should never be used to protect violations of the Charter or shield perpetrators of atrocity crimes. This is a basic, yet overlooked principle reflected in Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter. When the Council is unable to act, the wider UN membership has an important responsibility to uphold uphold the Charter, support accountability, and prevent the normalization of non-compliance. Distinguished colleagues, bridging the implementation gap is not a technical exercise. It is about whether the Council stands behind its own decisions. For us, three principles are essential: legal obligations must be implemented in good faith; Council mandates must be consistently followed up; And the Council's deadlock must not become an excuse for inaction. Only then can the Security Council preserve its authority and fulfill its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I thank you. Grazie.

I thank the representative of Latvia. Now I give the floor to the representative of Greece.

Thank you, Chair, Co-Chairs, Excellencies. I would like to thank China and Pakistan for convening this Area Formula Meeting on an issue that lies at the heart of the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council. I also thank the briefers for their insightful remarks. I would like to highlight the following two points. First, we recall that the members of the organization confirmed— conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. They also agreed that in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, the Security Council, carrying out its duties under this responsibility, acts on their behalf. Importantly, In the application of Security Council resolutions, the members of the organization have agreed to use the exact wording of Article 25 of the Charter to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. Greece underlines in this regard that the Security Council, in discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, shall act and take its decisions in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. Such decisions also include those building upon previous Security Council resolutions and established practice, which must likewise be applied by member states. Therefore, respect for the rule of law is of paramount importance not only regarding the exercise of the functions of the Council, but also as regards the application of its resolutions by the Member States. The Cyprus issue is a good example. Respect for and adherence to Security Council Resolutions 541 and 550 must serve as the guiding compass for Member States in addressing this issue. The Security Council, with its Resolutions 541 and 550, called upon all states to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and not to recognize the secessionist illegal entity or assist it in any way. Greece firmly believes that the maintenance of international peace and security can be achieved only through the establishment and consolidation of the rule of law. We attach great importance to the primacy of and respect for the UN Charter and international law. Second, related to the rule of law are issues concerning sanctions. Security Council resolutions providing restrictive measures under Chapter VII establish sanctions committees in order to monitor the implementation of the measures imposed, and to examine and take appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations or non-compliance with the measures contained in the resolutions. Security Council sanctions aim to ensure compliance with the international law and remain an essential tool for the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security. To be effective,, and to avoid unintended consequences, they must be carefully targeted in support of clear objectives. Member States must comply with the sanctions regimes established by the Council as a fundamental requirement of the international rule of law and must neither evade nor facilitate the circumvention of such measures. Embedding due process requirements is necessary for enhancing compliance and ensuring the effectiveness of the sanctions regime— regimes provided in the Security Council resolutions. The Office of the Ombudsperson, established in the context of the 1267 ISIL and al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, together with the Focal Point for Delisting, established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2744, are two mechanisms that play a central role in ensuring due process, fairness, and transparency in the application of sanctions. Their effective functioning is essential for upholding due process and strengthening the credibility and legitimacy of the sanctions regime. To conclude, Mr. Chair, Greece underscores that the full and effective application of Security Council resolutions is indispensable to the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the UN Charter and in conformity with international law. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Greece. Now I give the floor to the representative of France.

Mr.

Le Président, I thank China and Pakistan for organizing this meeting. And I also thank the briefers for their presentations. Unfortunately, we can only agree with the observation that on a number of issues, Security Council resolutions are insufficiently implemented. This results in a loss of credibility for the Council, weakening its voice and undermining its effectiveness. I will emphasize three points. First, let us recall that the Council's decisions are binding on all United Nations member states.— in accordance with the Charter. Article 25 of the Charter stipulates that member states agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council. This obligation is inseparable from the principles on which the organization is founded, in particular that of the sovereign equality of states. Security Council resolutions must therefore be implemented in good faith by all concerned states. Host states must fully cooperate with peacekeeping operations mandated by the Council in accordance with Status of Forces Agreements. Likewise, all member states are required to take the necessary measures to effectively implement sanctions regimes and embargoes decided by the Council. Second, with regard to a number of crises, the Council has already adopted important resolutions whose priority is their proper implementation. In Gaza. France calls on this council and on the parties to redouble their efforts to reverse the trends observed on the ground and to fully implement Resolution 2803. It is essential to consolidate the first phase of the peace plan and to realize the second phase. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the historic acceleration of Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territory threatens the progress enabled by Resolution 2803. Resolution 803, as well as the viability of the two-state solution. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the parties to the conflict must implement Resolution 2773, which calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of Rwandan defense forces from Congolese territory, the end of Rwandan support for the M23, and the neutralization of the FDLR by the DRC. In Lebanon, the full implementation of Resolution 1701, which remains our political political compass for achieving a diplomatic solution requires the extension of the Lebanese government's control over all of its territory, as well as respect for the country's territorial integrity. Third, it is incumbent on the members of this Council to actively work towards the implementation of the resolutions we adopt. We must devote the necessary efforts and political investment to ensure the proper implementation of the decisions we take. The behavior of Council members themselves has consequences. A blatant violation of the Charter and of Council resolutions by a permanent member inevitably, inevitably affects the willingness of other states to do the same. Permanent members also have a responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of sanctions committees and their panels of experts, including in the field of non-proliferation. It is regrettable that two permanent members persist in refusing to recognize Security Council resolutions on Iran's nuclear program, even though these were lawfully reinstated following the activation of the snapback mechanism in September 2025, as confirmed by the Secretariat. Finally, the repeated and abusive use of the veto leads to inaction and contributes to undermining the Council's authority. Presidents, the Council must continue to fully play its role as the guarantor of international peace and security. We must prioritize action and the implementation of our decisions while seeking consensus. All members of the Council have a role to play in this regard. I thank you.

I thank the representative of France for their statement, and I give the floor to the representative of Denmark.

Thank you, Chairs. Let me thank the briefers for their insightful briefings. We welcome today's discussion, although, as Mr.

Cohen said, While the topic might not be new, it is still important.

The resolutions of the Security Council are not merely statements of intent. The Council has the ability to adopt binding decisions under the Charter to maintain international peace and security. As member states, we all have an obligation to comply with the Charter in its entirety. This includes Article 25, under which we have all agreed to accept accept and carry out the decisions by the Council. Tjärm. The Security Council's enforcement measures are fundamental tools not only to maintain international peace and security, but also to uphold international law. While these tools, by their very nature, are enforceable and binding, they are only truly effective if member states implement and comply with them. In spite of this, we continue to witness an unwillingness to fully implement Council resolutions by some member states and parties to conflict. Denmark calls on all member states to fully implement the Council's decisions. Tjærs, thematic resolutions of the Council carry equal importance and we must redouble our effort to ensure their full implementation. This is why Denmark, alongside Spain, Spain and New Zealand last month organized an ARIA Formula meeting to mark the 10-year anniversary of Resolution 2286 and to address the lack of implementation of this important resolution on protection of medical care in armed conflict. We remain committed to advancing its full implementation. Effective implementation of Council resolutions also depends on adequate monitoring. In this respect, we regret the current inability of the Council to appoint the panel of experts for the 1737 sanctions, as well as the veto on the 1718 panel of experts, rendering both of those sanction regimes without effective, strong, and independent monitoring mechanisms.

Implementation also requires adequate funding.

While we firmly believe that efficiencies should be pursued when they can be found, We cannot expect UN peacekeeping operations to perform the same tasks mandated, mandated by this Council with significantly reduced resources. The introduction of contingency measures due to the liquidity crisis have affected protection of civilians and the safety and security of UN personnel. Denmark underscores the importance of ensuring sufficient funding for UN peace operations and protecting UN peacekeeping peacekeepers. We will continue to pay our share of the assessed budget in a timely manner and urge others to do the same. As part of our efforts to strengthen the protection of peacekeepers, Denmark and Pakistan put forward the resolution on accountability for crimes against peacekeepers, which was adopted unanimously by the Council this morning with 153 co-sponsors. We thank all the co-sponsors for their support on this important resolution, and we surely count for that resolution's full implementation. Let me conclude by reaffirming Denmark's unwavering commitment to upholding and implementing the resolutions of the Council in full accordance with the UN Charter.

I thank you. I thank the representative of Denmark. Now I give the floor to the representative of the DRC.

President, the Democratic Republic of the Congo wishes to thank the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this ARIA Formula Meeting on the issue Bridging the Implementation Gap, Security Council Resolutions, and the Maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council is indeed responsible for that maintenance. President, the theme of our discussion is particularly important because it directly affects the credibility of the collective security system under our organization. Today's meeting provides us with an opportunity to contemplate the gap which exists between the resolutions we adopt and their effective implementation on on the ground. The most striking example of this gap remains Resolution 2773 adopted in April 2025. It was adopted unanimously. Resolution 2773 condemned the offensive of the M23 terrorist group in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, and it demanded their withdrawal from Goma and Bukavu. And it demanded the Rwandan Defence Forces to cease all support for the M23 and to leave the territory of the DRC unconditionally. However, more than one year after its adoption, the realities seen on the ground remain concerning. Hostilities continue with worrying intensity. The humanitarian situation continues to worsen., and parallel administrative structures put into place in occupied areas continue to undermine the authority of the Congolese state. President, to overcome the difficulties sometimes linked to the non-implementation or selective implementation of security resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, it's perhaps useful to turn back to Resolution 687 adopted years ago, which remains one of the most striking examples of the implementation of measures adopted by the Security Council. Despite the fact that it was adopted a long time ago, that resolution— that resolution and 2773 are comparable. They're seeking to restore territorial integrity of a state that's been the victim of an attack. And to— and that's fallen victim to foreign military presence, it's all— they're always— they're also seeking to restore the authority of the state concerned. The implementation of these resolutions is, however, different. In 1991, there was Resolution 687, and in order to guarantee its implementation, the Security Council had instituted several specific implement— mechanisms namely UNSCOM. That was a border demarcation mechanism, and there was also a trade embargo instituted in connection with 687. The implementation of those measures was the expression of the Council's collective will to ensure the proper implementation of its decisions. However, in— there was the M23 offensive supported by Rwanda, and there was the siege of Goma and Bukavu. Then the Security Council reacted with unity by adopting Resolution 2773. This text namely called for the immediate withdrawal of the RDF from the RDC's territory. The issue which today arises is whether it's been effectively implemented or not. Where the Resolution 687 of 1991 was buttressed by many mechanisms designed to ensure the implementation of Council decisions, other resolutions continue to face implementation challenges. These situations should prompt us to more broadly reflect upon the means that the Council has at its disposal when it notes that a resolution that was unanimously adopted remains largely not implemented. President, to bridge the implementation gap where security Council resolutions are concerned, the DRC wishes to make the following observations. One, the implementation of a resolution adopted under Chapter 7 is a legal obligation applicable to all parties concerned. So it's the— these Council decisions are erga omnes in nature and are bound— binding upon everyone. The Council's Credibility also depends upon its ability to ensure compliance with decisions it adopts. My second point, regional and diplomatic initiatives, namely the Nairobi processes, the Luanda process, the Lomé and Doha processes, and efforts of the countries involved supported by international partners remain vital. However, these initiatives cannot be considered as merely complementary to the implementation of Council resolutions. They cannot substitute compliance with Council decisions. My third point: the fight against impunity remains crucial as a component of any strategy aiming to ensure lasting compliance with Security Council resolutions and aiming to ensure the non-repetition of conflicts noted. As far as we're concerned, Mr. President, this— today's debate recalls a simple reality: the Council's credibility does not simply reside in its ability to adopt resolutions, but rather in its ability to support their effective implementation. When a decision that is unanimously adopted remains unable to produce tangible effects on the ground, trust in the Council's collective authority is sorely tested, the DRC remains convinced that consistent, unbiased, and effective implementation of Council resolutions is one of the crucial prerequisites for the maintenance of international peace and security. I thank you.

I thank DRC for the statement.

I give the floor to the representative of Colombia.

Co-presidents, Excellencies, I wish to thank the delegations of China and Pakistan for convening this ARIA Formula meeting on a structural and urgent challenge facing our organization, that is the implementation a communication gap regarding Security Council resolutions. As quite rightly indicated in the concept note, collective security is not an à la carte menu from which states select which obligations to uphold and which to ignore. Article 25 is categorical: Council decisions are obligatory. When a resolution becomes dead letter, The impact is not merely procedural. Inaction prolongs conflicts, facilitates violations, and tragically claims human lives on the ground. As members of the Council, we must recognize with self-critical candor that there are double standards when it comes to the oversight of our mandates. While resolutions adopted under Chapter VII are underpinned by a robust architecture of sanctions, committee, and committees of experts, binding decisions adopted under Chapter VI for the peaceful settlement of disputes are often lacking comparable follow-up mechanisms. This is Political asymmetry weakens preventive diplomacy and erodes trust in multilateralism. To narrow this implementation gap, our delegation proposes 3 measures in connection with the guiding questions we've been asked to consider. One, we should institutionalize periodic reviews. The Council should have technical, specific follow-up debates for long-standing resolutions where non-compliance remains, regardless of the chapter under which they have been adopted. The Council should also conduct a more comprehensive review of mandate renewal dates, such as to allow efficient compliance with mandates. Secondly, information gathering on the ground should play a greater role in implementation. Making more proactive use of monitoring capacities that peacekeeping operations and special political missions have is important so as to ensure systematic and transparent reporting on local obstacles hindering compliance. Thirdly, there should be greater regional synergy. Bolstering cooperation with regional agreements in accordance with Chapter 8 is important. These regional agreements should be used as local guarantors to ensure the proper implementation of the peace parameters agreed upon by this Council. Presidents, complying in good faith with Security Council resolutions is the only way to preserve the legitimacy of the international international order that we have built collectively. It is also the only way to effectively uphold the international law which governs us all. Resolutions must always be treated as effective tools to guarantee peace and to protect the rule of law. They should never be treated as promises unfulfilled. When the disintegration of resolutions is normalized, the international— system absorbs instability that results until conflict becomes inevitable. Ultimately, trust in the Security Council and in its resolutions is only maintained when states internalize compliance with the Council's own resolutions as a legal obligation and an act serving the common interest. Recognizing that compliance with agreements is vital for international peace, security, and the stability of the international legal order. Thank you.

I thank Colombia for the statement. I give the floor— I now invite the representative Bahrain to make a statement.

Thank you. At the outset, I would like to thank the delegations of the People's Republic of China as well as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I thank them for convening this important meeting. One that highlights an issue that is very closely linked to the effectiveness of the Security Council, as well as its credibility and ability to fully play its role of maintaining international peace and security. I would also like to thank Mr. Khaled Kari, Mr. Khaled Kari, As well as Ms. Shamala Thompson and all the briefers for their very enriching briefings that address important topics. The value of Security Council resolutions comes not only with their adoptions, but rather with their good faith implementation, non-selective implementation. Failure to implement these resolutions or their selective application risks eroding the credibility of the Council and undermining trust in multilateral action. It also undermines the rule of law at the international level. In that regard, we recall that Article 25 of the Charter stipulates that UN member states agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. In addition, Article 2, paragraph 2 stresses the fact that member states must fulfill their obligations in good faith. These are all important elements when it comes to the effectiveness of our system of collective security, as well as upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter. The existence of gaps in the implementation of Security Council resolutions is not a purely procedural matter. It is a situation that has ramifications on international peace and security. The persistence of such gaps will inevitably lead to prolonging conflicts and aggravating humanitarian suffering. It will obstruct access to aid, and it also encourages parties to ignore their obligations in line in accordance with international law. The situation is further worsened when civilians find themselves under threat and when efforts to combat terrorism are undermined and the security of an entire region, as well as of maritime navigation, is threatened. In that regard, Security Council Resolution 2818— uh, 2817, rather— clearly illustrates the importance of going from the adoption phase to the full and effective implementation phase. That is why we stress the importance for Iran to respect that resolution, particularly respect for international law and preserving international maritime security, as well as abstaining from any practices that could threaten international maritime navigation. Or jeopardize regional and international peace and security. Iran must also abstain from using proxy parties. Resolution 2817 firmly condemns the— aggression committed by Iran targeting the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This resolution brought a clear message at the international level, a message that was backed by 136 member states who co-sponsored that resolution. The message in that resolution has to do with the sovereignty of states, the protection of civilians, the maintenance of peace and security, maritime navigation, and security of international maritime navigation are fundamental principles that cannot be applied selectively. They are key pillars for the preservation of international peace and security. That is why non-respect for that resolution not only has a direct impact on the states concerned, it undermines this collective message from the international community. This situation risks undermining the ability of the Security Council to transform this broad support into concrete measures to prevent such actions, such hostile actions, from recurring in the future. These are dangerous, illegal, and unjustified actions. That threaten international peace and security. Non-respect for these resolutions has direct negative impacts on regional peace and stability, as well as on the protection of civilians in the region. In addition to its economic repercussions when it comes to international trade and logistical supply chains, as well as energy security. These are all important issues that we have addressed during today's meeting, and they must be addressed effectively and urgently. We also reaffirm the importance of the role played by regional organizations as well as sub-regional organizations under Chapter 8 of the UN Charter, in particular when it comes to support to the Council for the implementation of its resolutions. Those efforts are carried out in particular by making good use of mediation mechanisms, strengthening trust, as well as early warning and addressing the root causes of conflicts. In that context, we refer to two statements— presidential statements adopted by the Security Council in April on cooperation between the United Nations and the cooperation Council of the Gulf, as well as the League of Arab States. The Kingdom of Bahrain underscores that the effective and non-selective implementation of Security Council resolutions is an essential prerequisite for preventing conflicts and for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Kingdom of Bahrain— —reiterates its call. We stand ready to work with other council members and all other member states to strengthen respect for Security Council resolutions and to bolster the credibility of multilateral action. This is an important issue, and that is why I wanted to address all of these important aspects. And thank you very much again for convening this important meeting.

I thank Bahrain for the statement.

I give the floor to the representative of the United States.

Thank you, Chairs. Thank you for convening today's meeting. I'd also like to appreciate the insights of our briefers. Colleagues, to return the UN to its core task of maintaining international peace and security, every member state must uphold the UN Charter and the Security Council must deliver on its critical mandate. The Council's effectiveness and credibility are consistent— contingent upon the full, faithful, and timely implementation of its decisions. For example, the Security Council has responsibility to ensure that peacekeeping mandates are focused on core peace and security issues and tied to clear and measurable outcomes. Peacekeeping missions can only operate with the active consent of the host country's government. And yet host states often obstruct missions, as is the case of UNMISS, undermining the mission's effectiveness. When it comes to sanctions, all member states play a role in ensuring implementation. UN sanctions are an alternative to the use of force, but only work when violators are held to account. And sanctions deliver results only when member states follow through on their implementation. In parallel, the Security Council must make sanctions a more effective option to address shared threats. We call on sanctions committees to implement the— implement their mandates and designate sanctions violators. Implementation also means taking timely action on nominations. Allowing nominations to stall indefinitely undermines the Council's own stated objectives. Colleagues, permanent members of the Security Council have a particular responsibility when it comes to implementing the Council's resolutions. More than a year ago, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2774, calling for a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine. While Russia continues to ignore calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, Ukraine has conveyed its unconditional willingness to to cease fighting and engage in peace negotiations. In closing, it is essential for the Security Council to explore how to better implement its decisions. The United States will continue to strongly defend the primacy of the Security Council on issues of international peace and security, particularly as they relate to other UN organs. Thank you.

I thank United States for this statement. I give the floor to the United Kingdom.

Thank you, chairs, and good afternoon, colleagues. Um, I thank China and Pakistan for bringing us together today, and thank you also to our briefers for sharing your ideas with us. We have taken careful note. As we know, the world is facing more conflict than at any time since the founding of the United Nations, but multilateralism remains the best tool to address the various global challenges that we face. As we strive for peace, we should collectively remain guided by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The United Kingdom has long been clear: the maintenance of international peace and security relies, of course, not only on the resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, but on their full, effective, and timely implementation. I will give an example relating to the ongoing crises in the Middle East. We reiterate our call for the swift implementation of Phase 2 of the Gaza peace plan as set out in Resolution 2803. We welcome to the first session of high-level talks under the Memorandum of Understanding signed this month between the United States and Iran. This is an important step forward in ending the war, and we recognize that this Council has a role to play in any final deal. It is therefore of the utmost importance that all Council resolutions, including Resolution 2817, are adhered to. All member states have a collective responsibility to uphold the UN architecture to help constrain proliferation risk. Risks. Finally, all UN tools, including its good offices, should be utilized to the fullest extent to support implementation of Council resolutions. Peacekeeping and special political missions, panels of experts, and sanctions committees, including those on Iran and the DPRK, all play a vital role in enabling and monitoring the implementation of Council resolutions and decisions. Host states must allow the safe and effective implementation of mission mandates, including through ensuring the safety of peacekeepers. And the Security Council should use all the many tools at our disposal to understand better and to address more implementation issues. For our part, the United Kingdom will continue to work tirelessly to uphold the principles of the UN Charter and to play our part in the full implementation of Security Council resolutions in our collective endeavor to maintain international peace and security. Thank you.

Thank you. I thank the representative of the UK. Now I give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Distinguished co-chairs, we welcome the initiative of our friends from China and Pakistan to discuss the issue of the non-implementation of Security Council resolutions and its impact on the maintenance of international peace and security. This is indeed a far-reaching and a pressing problem. It has been worsening year after year, inflicting serious damage on— on the world order founded on the UN Charter and other norms of international law. Russia consistently upholds the principle of good faith implementation of Council resolutions. It is telling that today we find ourselves having to reaffirm their binding nature, as well as the exclusive prerogatives of the Security Council in matters of maintaining international peace and security. Still fresh in our memory are the remarks made by the US permanent representative under the previous administration, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in March 2024, to the effect that compliance with Security Council decisions could be disregarded for political purposes. Needless to say, no international order is possible if states were to follow that harmful counsel. One need not look far for concrete examples of bad faith in the implementation of Security Council decisions. As soon as Resolution 2202 was adopted in 2015, endorsing the package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements, its implementation was immediately rejected by the Ukrainian side, the EU, and the United States. Ukraine's Western allies subsequently admitted that these agreements had in reality served only to prepare the Ukrainian side for war with Russia while simultaneously misleading the international community. The outcome of that policy is well known. Security Council Resolution 1244 from 1999, setting out the principles for a Kosovo settlement, continues to be ignored 27 years on by both Pristina and its Western patrons alike. Against this backdrop, in contravention of the Security Council's decision, Pristina is stepping up efforts to create a full-fledged army. And to accelerate integration into NATO, with destructive consequences for the Balkan subregion. Fundamental Security Council resolutions on the Middle East settlements, particularly Resolution 242 and 338, are effectively being nullified. The prospect of two states is being eroded. Israel continues to control the greater part of the territories seized during earlier wars and the recent escalation, including the perimeter of East Jerusalem. Having seized the mediation initiative, the Board of Peace is effectively eliminating any further UN role in the Middle East process, which fundamentally contradicts the basic parameters for peace in the region. Another glaring example of blatant disregard for Security Council resolutions is the legal and procedural abuse perpetrated by Western countries on the matter of the Iranian nuclear program. At first, they pursued the course of obstructing the implementation of Resolution 2231. Then the UK, France, and Germany, without any justification or legal basis to do so, made an unsuccessful attempt to trigger the snapback mechanism provided by that resolution. As a result, the Security Council has found itself in a procedural crisis from which it has yet to extricate itself. Distinguished co-chairs, when discussing the issue of non-implementation of Security Council resolutions at the present stage, one cannot overlook the issue of goal setting and the enforceability of certain decisions at the drafting stage. We are increasingly witnessing draft decisions— draft resolutions that are detached from reality in their substance, have not been coordinated with key implementing actors, are confrontational in nature, and contain irrelevant objectives. Such documents do not contribute to the achievement of sustainable outcomes. As a result, the Council receives yet another round of criticism for inaction and ineffectiveness, which undermines its credibility in the eyes of the international community. It has notably become the norm for Security Council members belonging to the Western camp— penholders belonging to the Western camp— to refuse to seek compromise on critical peace and security issues. Taking advantage of their strength in numbers within the body, they often make no effort to find common ground in order to achieve unanimous decisions. But are Security Council decisions adopted in this manner actually implemented? As practice shows, decisions not adopted by consensus are often problematic at the implementation stage. All of this is one of the key arguments in favor of reforming the Security Council in a way that would increase the representation of developing countries within it. Russia is convinced that the difficulties associated with ensuring the implementation of Security Council resolutions are significant, but they are surmountable with political will. The solution lies in establishing constructive engagement that takes into account the core interests of the key actors at the stage of working out solutions and in strict adherence to Council decisions. Following such an approach would be the best example of implementing the UN Charter. The anniversary of whose signing we will be marking on June 26th. Thank you for your attention. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to the representative of Somalia.

Thank you, co-chairs. Somalia thanks China and Pakistan for convening this timely and critically important Arya Formula meeting, which cuts directly to the core of our shared multilateral responsibilities and the integrity of the Council's work. We also thank the briefers for their valuable contributions. The Security Council is often described as the cornerstone of international peace and security. Its resolutions are meant to reflect the the collective will of the international community and provide the legal and political framework for everything from conflict prevention to humanitarian access. Yet the true measures of these resolutions lie in their implementation. When some decisions are pursued with urgency while others are left to languish, we risk undermining not only the authority of the Council but the foundations of multilateral terrorism itself. Allow me to highlight 3 key points for our consideration. First, we must be clear: consistent, full, and timely implementation of Security Council resolutions is not a technicality; it's a core test of our Council's credibility and integrity of the UN Charter. Selective or delayed implementation sends a dangerous message that that adherence to international law is negotiable, eroding trust in the entire system. Second, to address this, we need a stronger and more transparent mechanism for monitoring and review. Regular assessment on how the solutions are being implemented, where progress is being made, and where it's stalling are essential. This transparency not only supports accountability but also helps mobilized political will needed to overcome obstacles. Third, we should make better use of the entire UN system and regional organizations. Peacekeeping operations, sanctions committees, and judicial bodies all have complementary roles to play in supporting the implementation of Security Council decisions. When these mechanisms work in concert under clear mandates, they can help turn to turn the Council's resolution from words on paper into a real change on the ground. In closing, co-chairs, the strength of the Security Council, and indeed the trust placed in it by the world, depends on our ability to ensure that its decisions are treated not as options but as obligations. If we want the Council to remain a credible actor for peace and security, we must match our words with action. Our delegation takes this opportunity to renew our commitment to principled, consistent, and collective implementation. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Somalia. Now I hand back over to Ambassador Ahmed to present over the rest of the meeting.

Thank you, Ambassador Fu, for conducting this session so far. I would now invite non-Council members to take the floor, and in view of the pretty good number of speakers that we have on the list, we would request delegations to kindly limit their statements to 3 minutes. I have the honor to give the floor first most of all to the European Union.

President, I have the honour of delivering a statement on behalf of the EU and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as San Marino, align themselves with this statement. I'd like to thank China and Pakistan for convening this meeting, as well as the briefers for their useful insights. Today's world is increasingly shaped by growing geopolitical tensions, and we are witnessing grave violations of international law, —including the unjustified use of force against sovereign states, breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and others. In these uncertain times, the Charter of the United Nations remains an indispensable guide for our actions. Upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter, including sovereignty and territorial integrity, political independence, and the right to self-determination, is a commitment that must be reconfirmed every day. These principles are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised. In this context, the UN Security Council is at the heart of the peace and security architecture, and its resolutions constitute legally binding obligations under Article 55 of the UN Charter. When they are ignored, selectively applied, or left unimplemented, the authority of the Council is undermined, conflict resolution is impeded, and the multilateral system loses credibility. Security Council resolutions provide frameworks for peace, but frameworks only have meaning if they are implemented. Let me be concrete by naming a couple of examples. The EU reiterates its call for the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2803, which provides a framework for ending the conflict in Gaza and addressing the dire humanitarian crisis. The EU contributes to the comprehensive plan through our civilian crisis management missions our leading support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Donor Group. The EU also demands the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, calling for the respect of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Israel, and the disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. A continued UN presence in Lebanon in the post-UNIFIL context remains essential to ensure the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, we look forward to the constructive discussions on the options presented to the UN Security Council by the UN Secretary-General. Colleagues, Resolution 2774 on path to peace stands as a stark example of a resolution adopted by this Council, yet rendered hollow by the very escalation it was meant to halt. The EU is appalled by Russia's continued non-implementation of that resolution. Russia's failure to comply means a direct disregarding of the authority of the Security Council and the foundations of the UN Charter. We reiterate our call on Russia to abide by the Council decision and to fulfill its obligation in full. The permanent members of this Council bear a special responsibility for upholding it, not undermining it. Let me also mention the critical importance to ensure, in accordance with Resolution 2231, The implementation of all 6 previously lifted Security Council resolutions pursuant to Iran's nuclear program. The situation is clear. Iran has persistently failed to fulfill its safeguard obligations and fully cooperate with the IAEA, which is unable to confirm that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. As a result, the vote of the Security Council last September was unambiguous on the reinstatement of the UN sanctions. This has been confirmed on numerous occasions by the UN Secretariat. It is the duty of this Council and all its members to ensure that these resolutions will now be fully implemented by all its members. President, Security Council resolutions authorizing peacekeeping missions represent some of the Council's most consequential operational decisions. Yet we cannot demand implementation without providing the necessary resources proper planning, command and control capabilities. Nor can we demand implementation without accountability. In this regard, EU warmly welcomes the adoption today of the Resolution on Accountability for Attacks Against Peacekeepers, co-penned by Denmark and Pakistan. The EU's support to the central role of the Security Council in peace and security is consequent and multifaceted. We are political supporter of the Security Council, including on its role in peacekeeping and prevention. We underpin our commitment financially by remaining collectively the largest and most reliable political and financial contributor of the UN, and we give our support through our common security and defence policy. Operation Althea in Bosnia-Herzegovina has been deployed since 2004 under a Security Council resolution and continues to play a key role in supporting the authorities in maintaining a safe and secure environment for all its citizens. Other EU operations have acted in support of Security Council resolutions, such as Operation Aspidas in the Red Sea to protect merchant vessels, Operation Irini to monitor the respect of the arms embargo in Libya, or Operation Atalanta to counter piracy in the Horn of Africa and the Western Indian Ocean. To conclude, Presidents, non-implementation cannot become the norm. Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote that every word has repercussions and so does every silence. Yet, Yet unimplemented resolutions seem to defy this sentence. Let us ensure that every resolution of the Security Council carries repercussions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would now like to give the floor to the representative of Switzerland, to be followed by Angola and Mexico.

Thank you, Chairs, and many thanks also to the briefers for their insights. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group. Security Council decisions carry legal and political weight. Their value ultimately depends on their implementation. The Council's credibility is measured not only by the resolutions it adopts, but also by its ability to ensure that its decisions are translated into action, and to adjust its approaches when implementation falls short. The ACT Group believes that effective implementation starts with the creation of clear, focused, and realistic mandates, matched by adequate capacities and resources. The Council should also make regular and systematic use of reporting and oversight requirements to assess progress and make informed adjustments where necessary. The ACT Group also underlines the importance of well-functioning and active subsidiary bodies. Sanctions committees, the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa, and other subsidiary organs play an indispensable role in supporting the implementation and follow-up of Council decisions. Their effectiveness depends on active engagement by Council members and adequate support from the Secretariat. A situation where subsidiary bodies chairs cannot take up their role due to political divisions within the Council is untenable and harms the Council's standing. The recurrent delays in the appointment of subsidiary body chairs are a matter of utmost concern, and we urge Council members to immediately find a solution. In the context of sanctions regimes, independent panels of experts remain essential tools for monitoring implementation, identifying violations, and providing the Council with objective and evidence-based analysis to ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of sanction measures. The ACT Group calls for their timely appointment and notes that such panels can and have been successfully deployed by the General Assembly, as outlined in the Assembly for Peace Handbook. We also encourage the Council to continue engaging with affected states, regional organizations, troop and police contributing countries, as well as civil society and other relevant stakeholders. Their perspectives can provide valuable insights into implementation realities and contribute to to more effective and informed Council action. Finally, the Ack Group believes that a substantive, analytical, and forward-looking annual report of the Security Council can also contribute to implementation by capturing lessons learned, identifying persistent challenges, and enhancing institutional memory, thereby helping the Council to improve the effectiveness of its future action. I thank you.

Thank you. The Ambassador of Angola.

Eko shares, Excellencies. Angola commends China and Pakistan for convening this meeting and thanks the BIFR for their insightful presentations. The effectiveness and authority of the Security Council depend not only on the adoption of its resolutions but also on their full timely, consistent and non-selective implementation. Failure to implement resolutions undermines confidence in multilateralism, weakens respect for international law and may contribute to the persistence and escalation of conflicts. It also risks diminishing the credibility and legitimacy of the Council and the wider collective security system established under the Charter of the United Nations. Co-chairs, allow me to highlight three brief points. First, there is a need to strengthen monitoring, reporting, and follow-up mechanisms. Where appropriate, Security Council resolutions should include clear benchmarks, realistic timelines, and regular reporting requirements. This would facilitate the assessment of progress, identify implementation gaps, and ensure— and help ensure that Council decisions translate into tangible outcomes on the ground. Second, strengthened cooperation between the Security Council and regional organizations is essential. Given that a significant portion of the Council's agenda concerns Africa, implementation efforts should benefit from closer engagement with the African Union and other regional mechanisms in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter. Such cooperation can strengthen preventive diplomacy, mediation, peace support operations, and peacebuilding efforts. Third, Security Council reform remains indispensable. The effectiveness of the Council's decisions is closely linked to its legitimacy and representativeness. Angola therefore reiterated support for a comprehensive reform including the correction of historical underrepresentation of Africa, in line with the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Angola reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, the Charter of the United Nations, and international order based on respect for international law, sovereignty, dialogue, and cooperation. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Angola, and I would now give the floor to the representative of Mexico, to be followed by Nigeria.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, distinguished co-presidents. Mexico is grateful for the convening of this ARIA Formula meeting. We're grateful to China and Pakistan. This issue is of the utmost relevance and one which demonstrates the close link that begin— exists between Articles 23, 24, and 25 of the United Nations Charter. These cover composition, representativeness of the Council, and the obligatory nature of its decisions. The adoption of a Security Council decision is not an end in itself. Its true value lies in the decision's implementation. When the Council's decisions are not implemented fully and in a timely and consistent fashion, a gap begins to emerge between the commitments taken by the international community and the reality on the ground. One case of non-implementation signals collective inability to act with the efficacy demanded by the challenges of our times. The fact that this is where things stand is the result of a lack of consensus within the Security Council. That lack of consensus in turn manifests itself as an absence of decisions, on the one hand. On the other hand, it manifests itself as a situation whereby once decisions have been adopted, they are not implemented entirely or they are implemented selectively. It is well known to all that the Security Council has the tools it needs to follow up on its own decisions. What is lacking is essentially a desire to apply these practices consistently across all Council decisions. During Mexico's last Security Council term in 2021, it was identified that the lack of compliance with arms embargoes imposed by the Security Council was one one of the factors serving to prolong conflicts, worsen humanitarian crises, increase mistrust between states, and reduce opportunities to achieve sustainable political solutions. The Resolution 2616 of 2021 proposed by Mexico sought to narrow implementation gaps. The diagnoses and recommendations from panels of experts served as a basis for this tangible product. Their input also served to promote greater cooperation between countries to reduce the trafficking of weapons and the methods by which they became available. Mexico is convinced that if fewer weapons are available, parties to conflicts will have fewer incentives to prioritize the use of force, We are convinced that, on the contrary, they will opt for negotiations. Compliance with arms embargoes is one example of how much still needs to be done to narrow the implementation gaps. Member States must do more to identify other areas of opportunity. Mexico here wishes to present three recommendations about the action that should be taken to shore up the future of the Council. One, we should eliminate all ambiguity from language used. In resolutions. When the operational mandate is deliberately ambiguous, non-compliance abounds. Resolutions must contain clear parameters, clearly defined deadlines and timelines, and follow-up mechanisms clearly established to reduce room for interpretation, as other speakers have stated. My second point: we should ensure the implementation of Article 27, Paragraph 3 of the Charter. Its message is clear and unequivocal: a party to a dispute must refrain from voting in the Security Council. This This principle reflects a fundamental concept of justice and impartiality. Members of the Council cannot be both judge of and party to a dispute. My third and final recommendation, Co-President, removing obstacles that stymie decision-making on the part of the Security Council. The veto should not be understood as a privilege, but rather as a responsibility. We reiterate the relevance of the Franco-Mexican initiative to reduce the use of the veto in case of mass atrocities. We welcome the recent support extended to this initiative and the accession of more states from the African continent. There too, we invite other states and other regions that have not yet done so to accede to the same. Thank you.

Thank the representative of Mexico, and I now give the floor to Nigeria, followed by Oman, and Zimbabwe. Nigeria is not here? Oman?

Co-chairs, ladies and gentlemen, may the peace, blessings, and mercy of God be with you. We thank the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for organizing this important meeting, this important area formula meeting on bridging the implementation gap, Security Council resolutions, and the maintenance of international peace and security. We firmly believe that the credibility of the Security Council and its effectiveness are not dependent on the adoption of resolutions alone. Resolutions must be fully implemented in a non-selective manner manner. Failure to implement resolutions undermine confidence in multilateralism, undermine international law, perpetuate human suffering and conflicts. The Charter created a clear framework for collective security. All countries must abide by their commitments according to the Charter. The selective implementation of resolutions double standards, delays in following up— they're all factors that erode trust in the international system. They limit the ability of the Security Council to fulfill its role to settle disputes. In this regard, we cannot ignore what is transpiring in the Palestinian territories, especially in Gaza— the unbelievable human suffering as a result of continued Israeli military actions and the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. There are limitations imposed on the delivery of humanitarian aid. The Sultanate of Oman stresses that full implementation, consistent implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions that call for an immediate ceasefire, call for the protection of civilians, and ensure humanitarian access— full humanitarian access— is a true litmus test for the credibility and effectiveness of the Council. Failure to implement these resolutions undermine trust in multilateralism and the ability of international community to maintain international peace and security. The Sultanate of Oman also stresses the importance of enhancing reporting and monitoring mechanisms in Council's resolutions for them to be objective, transparent, and for them to be consistent with the Charter and international law. Enhancing coordination between the U.N. and other concerned parties would contribute to a more effective implementation of resolutions and contribute to peacebuilding efforts. The Sultanate of Oman stresses the importance of preventive diplomacy, dialogue, mediation, and the peaceful settlements of disputes. They are essential tools to turn Security Council resolutions to tangible results on the ground. Experience has shown that sustainable peace can only be achieved through political comprehensive solutions that address the root causes of conflicts and enhance national ownership of the peace process. We are committed to dialogue, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence. This is why the Sultanate of Oman stresses that enhancing compliance with Security Council resolutions must serve the noble goal of maintaining international peace and security, conflict prevention, enhance effectiveness of multilateralism, and enhance confidence in multilateralism. I thank you.

Thank you, Representative of Oman. I would now give the I give the floor to Zimbabwe, to be followed by Iran and Azerbaijan.

Thank you, co-chairs. Zimbabwe extends its appreciation to the Permanent Mission of China and the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for convening this ARYA Formula Meeting. We also thank the briefers for their insights. The theme of this meeting is highly pertinent and consequential as it speaks directly to the effectiveness of the Security Council in fulfilling its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. At a time of heightened geopolitical tensions and persistent hotspots of conflict and instability, the Council has a critical role to play in calming the flames of conflict, silencing the guns, and advancing the promise of sustainable peace. The non-implementation, selective implementation, or delayed implementation of Security Council resolutions carries serious consequences for international peace and security. It is not— it not only jeopardizes peace but also allows the root causes and drivers of conflicts to deepen, creating a perpetual spiral of instability. Such gaps also weaken confidence in the multilateral system them and undermine the legal regime to which member states have subscribed under the Charter of the United Nations, including Article 25, which affirms the binding nature of Council decisions. Across the Council's agenda, the implementation gap remains one of the most serious tests of the Council's credibility. It can be seen, among others, in the delayed operationalization of Resolution 2719, unpredictable financing for African-led peace support operations, the persistent challenges around the full implementation of Resolution 1701 on Lebanon, the continuing gaps in the implementation of Resolution 2334 regarding settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, and the longstanding difficulties in advancing the political process envisaged in Resolution 2235 2016 on Yemen. These few examples underscore that the authority of the Council rests not only in the adoption of resolutions, but also in their faithful, balanced, and consistent implementation. Political will is therefore a fundamental requirement for sustaining the credibility, force, and effect of Council decisions. Resolutions must not remain words on paper. They must translate into meaningful action on the ground and into tangible progress for the peoples and communities affected by conflict. In this regard, strong monitoring, reporting, and follow-up mechanisms are essential to ensure the full implementation of Council decisions and to identify and address implementation challenges at an early stage. Where necessary, the Council should also be prepared to make effective and responsible use of the tools available to it under the Charter. Ko Tshisekedi, Co-Chair. Resource constraints also continue to hinder the effective implementation of Security Council decisions. The financing of African Union-led peace support operations, as earlier noted, remains a case in point. While the Council has taken an important step in establishing a framework for predictable, adequate, and sustainable financing The practical arrangements required to give full effect to that decision are yet to be fully realized. Zimbabwe therefore calls for the early operationalization of the agreed framework, which could serve as a practical template for various peace support scenarios as decided by the Council. Co-chairs, tackling the root causes of conflict, silencing the guns, strengthening cooperation between the Security Council regional organizations in advancing their women, youth, peace, and security agendas are critical pathways to ensure that Security Council resolutions are not only implemented but also embraced by affected communities. Zimbabwe supports inclusive and sustainable peace, recognizing important roles of women, youth, local communities, traditional institutions, and civil society where appropriate. Durable peace cannot be imposed from afar. It must be built without— with the participation, ownership, and trust of those most affected. Let me conclude by reaffirming Zimbabwe's commitment to the promotion of peace through diplomacy, mediation, prevention, and nationally-owned political processes. Zimbabwe remains committed to contributing to a more credible, representative, transparent, and effective Security Council. In which all member states respect and implement its decisions. I thank you.

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I now give the floor to Ambassador of Iran, to be followed by Azerbaijan and Qatar.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, I thank China and Pakistan for organizing this Area for Miura meeting, and I thank the briefers for their briefings. I would like to highlight the following brief points. First, under Article 25 of the Charter, member states agreed to accept and carry out the Security Council decisions in accordance with the Charter. Equally important, under Article 24, Paragraph 2, the Security Council itself must discharge its primary responsibility for maintaining of the international peace and security in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Compliance with Security Council resolutions therefore depends not only on the implementation by member states but also on the Council's own faithful adherence to the Charter. Second, the effectiveness of Security Council is not determined by the quantity of resolutions it adopts,, but by their consistent and impartial implementation. The persistent gap between the adoption and enforcement, driven by political selectivity, has entrenched double standards. The occupied Palestinian Territory remains a stark example, where numerous resolutions, including the recent one in Gaza, which called for a permanent ceasefire, protection of civilians, and unhindered humanitarian access remain unimplemented with severe humanitarian consequences. Third, the recent case concerning Iran further illustrates these systematic concerns. Iran has been subjected to two unlawful acts of aggression by the United States and Israeli regime. In response to the Council's failure to discharge its primary responsibility, Iran exercised its inherent right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. However, The adoption of biased and one-sided Resolution 2817 without addressing the root causes of the crisis or acknowledging Iran's right of self-defense reflects a selective framing of facts and law. Such a political approach undermines the credibility of the Council's decisions and risks normalizing impunity for aggressors and their unlawful use of force. Fourth, strengthening compliance with Security Council resolutions cannot be achieved in isolation from the Council's own conduct. It requires the Council itself to act strictly in accordance with the Charter, to apply international law in a consistent and impartial manner, and to discharge its responsibility without selectivity, politicization, or double standards. The credibility and effectiveness of the Council depend fundamentally on its own adherence to the same legal requirements it expects member states to uphold. Finally, some Western members refer to Security Council Resolution 2231. They should accept this reality that Resolution 2231 terminated definitively on October 18th, 2025, and all measures, mandates, and mechanisms established under it consequently ceased to exist. I thank you.

Thank you, Representative of Iran. And I'll give the floor to Azerbaijan, followed by Qatar and Japan.

At the outset, I would like to thank the Permanent Missions of China and Pakistan for convening this important discussion. Azerbaijan's own painful experience offers a sobering illustration of the challenges that arise when Security Council resolutions are not implemented in good faith. The international community failed to prevent and suppress the aggression against my country and the resulting occupation and devastation of its territories. Despite condemning the use of force and demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from the territories of Azerbaijan. Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884, unanimously adopted in 1993, remained unimplemented for almost 3 decades. The non-implementation of these resolutions, rooted in selectivity and double standards and coupled with impunity for non-compliance created conditions conducive to the protraction of the conflict and further aggravated its political, military, humanitarian, and economic consequences. This case clearly exposed deep systemic deficiencies that entrenched an unlawful situation, prolonged human suffering, and undermine prospects for sustainable peace and regional cooperation. Between 2020 and 2023, Azerbaijan itself ensured the implementation of the Security Council resolutions by ending the occupation, restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and laying the foundation for advancing a comprehensive peace agenda in the region. With regard, with regard to the question raised in the concept note on how the Council can better ensure the implementation of its resolutions, first and foremost, greater efforts are required to counter selective approaches to and misinterpretation of resolutions and international law, strengthen accountability for non-compliance, and maintain sustained attention to situations characterized by by prolonged non-implementation. Furthermore, regional arrangements cannot be imposed upon the parties concerned, nor should they monopolize all conflict-related processes and arbitrarily interpret international law and Security Council resolutions. They may, however, play an important supportive role, provided that their engagement remains fully consistent consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter, the relevant Security Council resolutions, and the universally accepted principles of effective mediation. Azerbaijan reaffirms its commitment to promoting peace and strengthening a multilateral system that is more effective, credible, and capable of delivering on its promises. I thank you.

I thank you, Ambassador. We have now Qatar, to be followed by Japan and Australia. Sayyeda Raisa Bint Eithan.

Mr. President, at the outset, we thank the two friendly countries, the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, for convening this important meeting. And we thank the briefers for their important interventions. Mr. President, the Council's authority lies in the full implementation of its resolutions in a timely manner and without selectivity. In this regard, we refer to Article 25 and Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Charter, which make such implementation a legal obligation rather than a matter of choice. The failure to implement Security Council resolutions has perpetuated conflicts, has led to the persistence of grievances,— and the erosion of confidence in multilateralism, particularly the United Nations system. The Council plays an indispensable and central role in the maintenance of international peace and security. However, to fulfill this role, the Council needs to be effective and representative of today's realities. The State of Qatar therefore renews its call for accelerating the reform of the Council within the framework of broader reform of the UN. Mr. President, the State of Qatar is proud that mediation and the peaceful settlement of disputes constitute a fundamental pillar of its foreign policy. This approach is firmly grounded in our permanent constitution and attests to our steadfast commitment to the Charter. The State of Qatar continues to advance the peaceful settlement of disputes in the Middle East and around the world. We underscore in this context the responsibility borne by the Security Council for international peace peace and security, and the importance of supporting peace efforts and ending conflicts through the adoption of consensus-based resolutions that strengthen the principles of the Charter, particularly the peaceful settlement of disputes. To advance the objectives of this meeting, the State of Qatar would like to highlight the following points. First, the implementation of Security Council resolutions is at its lowest precisely in situations where prevention is most urgently needed. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII often have their own enforcement architecture, including sanctions regimes, panels of experts, and monitoring and reporting arrangements. However, many resolutions related to the peaceful settlement of disputes, mediation, and conflict prevention lack any comparable mechanism for periodic review or follow-up. The lesson is clear. Peace agreements or ceasefires will only hold when backed by dedicated mechanisms to monitor compliance, resolve disputes as soon as they arise, and defuse incidents before they reignite conflicts. Second, The Council must support mediation efforts and the peaceful settlements of disputes. These are the most effective and least costly means of maintaining international peace and security. They are an investment in prevention. We need an approach that addresses the root causes of conflict. We call for renewed political and practical support for mediation efforts, and we call for empowering the Secretary-General in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Charter. Third, Security Council resolutions, including those adopted under Chapter VI and thematic resolutions, must, where appropriate, contain clear benchmarks, reporting timelines, and review mechanisms so that follow-up becomes the rule rather than the exception. In conclusion, the State of Qatar is ready to continue contributing as a mediator, a partner, and a member state committed to the Charter in bridging the gap between what this Council decides and what is achieved for the benefit of those who rely on its resolutions and its pivotal role. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. We have a number of speakers remaining on the list. I would beg your indulgence. I think with the— if we can stick to 3-minute limit, we can still make it. So I would like to give the floor now to Japan, to be followed by Australia and then Algeria.

It is timely and appropriate to discuss how to bridge the implementation gap of Security Council resolutions at a time when we see many cases of non-observance of the adopted resolutions. As stipulated in Article 25 of the UN Charter, UN member states agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. We agree with the concept note for this meeting, which correctly points out that collective security can function only when Security Council decisions are not treated as choices to be observed selectively. For example, since 2006, the Council has adopted many resolutions unanimously upon series of threats posed by a member state in Northeast Asia, starting from resolutions 1695 and 1718, unequivocally deciding that nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs shall be abandoned and activities related to ballistic missile programs shall be suspended. But what we witness today is totally contrary to what have been decided by the Council. Based on this common understanding on the importance of implementation, I would like to make two points regarding mechanisms for ensuring compliance with Security Council resolutions. First, in ensuring full implementation of Council resolutions, the work of subsidiary bodies, including sanctions committees, is highly important. From this perspective, It is regrettable that the chairs of the current subsidiary bodies have not yet been appointed and that these bodies are not functioning effectively. We call on the members of the Security Council, particularly those blocking the allocation, to reaffirm the importance of the subsidiary bodies. Second, I'd like to reiterate the importance of the work of the Panel of Experts in collecting and analyzing information concerning member states' implementation. Their reports provide us with the whole picture regarding implementation and are of great help to member states, including by allowing them to verify information and review their domestic measures. Unfortunately, one Council member terminated the mandate of one of the panels of experts in order to obstruct the implementation of Council resolutions for the sake of its own self-interest. The implementation of Council resolutions should not be hindered by the self-serving actions of any particular country. Under such circumstances, where implementation is not being properly upheld, each member state should make further efforts in taking collective actions in line with the relevant Security Council resolutions to monitor and complement the work of the sanctions committees. It is entirely erroneous to criticize such efforts to ensure the implementation of Council resolutions. In concluding, I'd like to reiterate that the adoption of Council resolutions should not become an end in itself, and their implementation should not be neglected after adoption. I thank you.

Thank you, Japan. We have now Australia, Algeria, and India in that order.

Colleagues, UN Security Council resolutions sit at the heart of the Council's work. They are the cornerstone of efforts to maintain international peace and security. Australia is firmly committed to complying with and implementing UN Security Council resolutions. Council resolutions are one of the most authoritative and effective international law tools. Pursuant to Article 25 of the UN Charter, UNSC resolutions resolutions can impose legally binding obligations on member states. They can also advance the norms and values that underpin international law and promote compliance when restating and reiterating member states' existing obligations. Resolution 2730 on the protection of humanitarian personnel, which Australia was proud to co-sponsor, is one such example. It calls on all states to respect to protect and protect humanitarian personnel, including those working for the UN and its partners, in accordance with international law. Despite this unequivocal call from the Council, more than 300 humanitarian personnel were killed in 2025, the first full year since Resolution 2730 was adopted in 2024. These figures are a painful illustration of both the risks faced by humanitarian personnel, and the costs of the non-implementation of Council resolutions and violations of international law. Australia takes our responsibility to implement Council resolutions seriously. That's why we led on the Declaration for Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, which outlined practical measures that states can take to protect humanitarian personnel. We continue to champion this important initiative and urge all members States to join. Colleagues, as a candidate for the UN Security Council in 2029-30, Australia will listen, partner, and protect. We will promote cooperative, practical approaches to build resilience, strengthen institutions, and prevent conflict before it takes hold. We will use our role to amplify small and middle power voices to ensure these perspectives help shape the Council's decisions and deliver meaningful outcomes. Outcomes. We pledge to work constructively to help the Council fulfill its mandate should we be elected, including by proactively monitoring and following up on the implementation of its resolutions.

Thank you. Thank you, Australia. Now I give the floor to Algeria. Mr.

Co-Chair, allow me at the outset to express our sincere Thanks and appreciation to both China and Pakistan for organizing this very important meeting.

The ability of the Security Council to fully carry out its primary responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security remains unfortunately, and in many cases, contingent upon the extent to which the concerned parties comply with and fully implement Security Council resolutions.

The absence of a genuine intent by some parties to comply with Security Council resolutions, the lack of effective mechanisms to ensure their enforcement, or resorting to selective implementation have all over the years contributed to undermining the credibility of this United Nations body, limiting its effectiveness.

Mr.

Chair, in light of the above, allow me to highlight the following points. First, the failure to fully implement Security Council resolutions or their partial implementation, as well as the application of double standards in their enforcement, not only weakens the authority of the Council and undermines its credibility, but also encourages some parties to evade accountability. Second, Regional organizations are of great importance in addressing crises, given their in-depth knowledge of local and regional contexts and the root causes of the conflicts.

In this regard, I would like to particularly highlight the important and central role of the A3 Group, which represents the institutional extension of the African Union within the United Nations Security Council.

Third and finally, it is well known that many Security Council resolutions, particularly those adopted under Chapter 6, often lack follow-up or periodic review mechanisms.

Therefore, it is necessary to ensure the implementation of Security Council resolutions by taking the required measures and establishing appropriate mechanisms to guarantee their full and complete enforcement, such as periodic follow-up, interim reporting, and the deployment of specialized committees. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of India, to be followed by Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

Ko Chairs, thank you, and all protocol courtesies observed. The Security Council is the principal organ of the United Nations that has been tasked with maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter, the guiding force of this organization, elaborates on the modes of intervention that are available at the Council's disposal to discharge its functional responsibilities on this front. Chapters 6 and 7 of the Charter hold the key in this regard. These two chapters are distinct in nature and their applicability varies. The purpose of Chapter VII is to undertake concrete actions when they offer firm pathways to the re-establishment of peace with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. These measures are aimed at maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. Their non-implementation could have an immediate aftermath —leading to further deterioration of peace and other serious consequences. Such non-implementation also runs contrary to the purposes and principles that multilateralism and international law framework endeavour to serve. However, Chapter VI is fundamentally different. It offers wide-ranging options to deal with situations whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. The proposed tools that could be considered include negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, etc., after taking into account any procedures that may have already been adopted bilaterally by the parties concerned. These interventions are drawn up in order to address the prevailing realities and do not have perpetual validity. They warrant a review in accordance with changing circumstances and context. Multi-decadal issues on the Council's agenda offer valuable lessons in this regard. A case in point is the Palestine issue, wherein a defining feature is the constant churn of mediation frameworks in tune with the changing circumstances of the conflict. There exists an undeniable case for reviewing outdated mediation frameworks. Any assumption of the perpetual applicability of a Chapter VI mediation intervention is erroneous to say the least. India would like to emphasize that at a time when member states are undertaking mandate implementation review under the UN 80 framework for all UN General Assembly mandates in order to achieve efficiencies, there is no reason why UN Security Council mandate should be outside the purview of such UN 80 frameworks. Uh, co-chairs, I also refer to the unwarranted remarks made by the representative of Pakistan. It is incredible that a co-chair expected to be balanced and unbiased in conduct has chosen to politicize this forum. I would only like to stress, for brevity of time, that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is a matter strictly internal to India. It has always been, is, and will remain so. Thank you, co-chairs.

Thank you. I will now give the floor to the representative of Lebanon, followed by Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

Thank you. Let me start by thanking you, co-chairs, for convening this important discussion, and our distinguished briefers for their invaluable contributions. The implementation of Security Council resolutions indeed goes to the heart of the Council's core role and credibility. Security Council resolutions are binding. They are meant to guide action, prevent escalation, protect civilians, and ultimately preserve international peace and security. For Lebanon, this is not an abstract issue. Lebanon continues to live with the effects of resolutions that have not been fully implemented, from Resolution 425 of 1978 to 1701 of 2006. Resolution 1701 remains the central framework for stability in southern Lebanon and beyond. Yet its full implementation continues to be undermined by repeated Israeli violations, continued occupation, and attacks that place civilians at risk and prevent displaced persons from returning safely to their homes. On monitoring and reporting, in many cases, including Lebanon, the problem is not always the absence of information. Violations are documented. Reports are submitted. Facts are known. The challenge is that reporting does not always translate into appropriate follow-up or into accountability. UN mechanisms and regional arrangements also have an important role to play. In Lebanon, UNIFIL remains essential not only for monitoring, but also for liaison, the confliction and communication between the parties. Its role should be supported, respected, and used as part of a broader effort to prevent further escalation. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, lack of implementation or partial adherence to Security Council resolutions can only perpetuate instability and increase the lack of renewed tensions. The authority and credibility of the Council depend on its on the Council's ability to adopt resolutions. But they depend as much on the Council's collective commitment to ensuring that those resolutions are implemented. Greater attention should therefore be given not only to adoption but also to follow-up, accountability, and sustained engagement with the concerned parties. At the same time, the Council must continue to be a place for dialogue. Preventive diplomacy should be placed at at the center of the Council's work, including through more regular informal engagement with and between concerned states and regional actors before crises deteriorate. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. We have Saudi Arabia, to be followed by Morocco and Cuba.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me at the outset to thank the People's Republic of China as well as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this important meeting on the important topic of bridging the gap in the implementation of Security Council resolutions and the maintenance of international peace and security. And I thank the briefers for their intervention The implementation of Council resolutions is just the first stage. However, the full implementation of these resolutions is the guarantor of the credibility of the Council and its ability to shoulder its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Saudi Arabia is convinced that respect for the UN Charter and specifically Article 25 is the foundation of international law. The challenges faced by the Middle East region, and particularly the Palestinian question, including conflicts spreading throughout the region as well as humanitarian crises and regional tensions, should— are highlighting the importance of fully implementing Security Council resolutions. The lack of implementation or selective implementation only serves to prolong conflicts and undermine the prospects for a peaceful settlement of conflicts. That is why it is necessary to respect the UN Charter, international law, and to translate Security Council resolutions into practical measures in order to strengthen peace and stability and ensure lasting peace in the region. Ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports all efforts to strengthen the effectiveness independence of the Council and to preserve the unity of the criteria applied in the implementation of its decisions, as well as ensure respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity. To conclude, the effective implementation of Council resolutions is of key importance for the preservation of international peace and security, as well as strengthening the credibility of the Council and achieving the goals that we have set to achieve a future of prosperity and peace.

Thank you.

Thank you, co-chairs. Excellencies, distinguished briefers, Ambassadors, Morocco thanks China and Pakistan for convening this timely discussion and the briefers for their insights. The Charter of the United Nations is the foundation of the international order. Its strength is sustained when the decisions taken under it are carried out. Security Council resolutions are among the principal instruments for maintaining international peace and security. Their value lies not in their adoption alone, but in their application. When carried out fully and consistently, they prevent conflict, settle disputes peacefully, and protect civilians. When their implementation falls short, much of their promise remains to be realized. This carries real implications for us all. Gaps in implementation can weaken trust in multilateralism, affect respect for international law, and leave the resolutions of the Council short of their full a powerful potential and instrument of peace. Against this background, Morocco would like to highlight 3 observations. First, on conflict prevention, the timely implementation of the Council decisions allow disputes to be addressed early before they escalate. Second, on the peaceful settlement of disputes, Article 33 of the Charter sets out the means available to states—negotiation, mediation, good offices, and regional arrangements. These deliver results most fully when the decisions that support them are applied. Third, when resolutions are carried out in good faith, the standing of the Council itself is reinforced, and with it, the trust that members place in its action. To conclude, bridging the gap between what the Council decides and what is carried out ultimately assured investments in the credibility of multilateralism itself. Morocco then welcomes this discussion and exchange of views it will allow. I thank you.

I thank Morocco for this short and sweet intervention and would like to give the floor now to Cuba to be followed by Cambodia.

Gracias, señores copresidentes. Thank you, co-presidents. We are grateful to China and Pakistan for convening this meeting. The matter that brings us together today is not merely procedural. It is a substantive issue that affects the credibility not only of the Security Council but also of the multilateral system overall. The Security Council, pursuant to the United Nations Charter, was invested with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, the effectiveness of this mandate cannot be assessed solely according to the number of resolutions adopted, but it must be assessed by the organ's ability to implement this mandate without selectivity or without double standards. The situation in Palestine is one of the most patently clear expressions of the gap that exists between the Council's adoption of resolutions and their effective implementation. For decades, the international community has witnessed the adoption of myriad resolutions that reaffirm the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and which call for full compliance with international international law. However, these have not been fully implemented. It is unacceptable that we continue to see impunity, impunity that continues to undermine multilateral efforts and the authority of the Council in matters which are part and parcel of its mandate. Council resolutions on the Palestine question must be fully implemented in accordance with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We reiterate our staunch support for the Palestinian people and the establishment of an independent and sovereign state within pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, guaranteeing the right of return of the refugees. Lasting peace in the Middle East will continue to be a distant dot on the horizon for as long as we do not see full compliance with relevant UN resolutions. It will not be possible to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East without a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Palestine question. Co-President Abbas's narrowing the implementation gap demands first and foremost that the Security Council itself fully comply with its mandate in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. The Security Council must act consistently across all threats to peace and international security. It must also defend the principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the pacific settlement of disputes. Multilateralism and international law today stand at a crossroads. No area of the world is spared the effects of the aggressive doctrine of peace through force and the hegemonic agenda of the United States, including the threat of the use of force, vile extrajudicial executions and acts of piracy, as well as maritime terrorism against oil tankers and crews in international waters in the Caribbean Sea. This is having a destabilizing impact and is an affront to Latin America and the Caribbean status as a zone of peace. We're also seeing the imposition of naval blockades, UCMs, and military aggressions against sovereign states. The frequent and systemic threats of military aggression— direct threats indeed— waged against the government of the US against Cuba, together with the ratcheting up of the genocidal blockade to an extent never seen before, is something we're seeing. We're also seeing a brutal energy siege and secondary sanctions that are having a severe impact on the life of the Cuban people. They all stand as a grave violation of international peace and security, as well as international law and IHL. The justifications used for this policy are fanciful and mendacious. Cuba has never been a threat to the US or to any other country. We roundly reject the pretext and lies fabricated by the US government to, in an attempt to justify its criminal conduct against Cuba and its acts of collective punishment. We defend the peace, respectful dialogue, and sovereign equality. We reiterate our staunch determination to defend our independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity to the very last breath. Peace and international security cannot be preserved through imposition, coercion, and the use of force. The current state of affairs demands absolute compliance with the UN Charter and international international law. Let us act with the responsibility called for by this historic juncture, stringently adhering to the foundations of this organization. Thank you.

I may give the floor to Cambodia, to be followed by Nepal.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Cambodia commends the Permanent Mission of China and Pakistan for convening these important meetings to advance the effective implementation of the Security Council resolutions. We also thank all the briefers for their valuable contributions. As among the most authoritative instruments to maintaining international peace and security, Security Council resolutions are essential for the peaceful settlement of disputes and prevention— the de-escalation of conflicts. Given the Despite considerable efforts required to achieve their adoption, their implementation must be effective, timely, and consistent. Article 25 of the Charter obliges all member states to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Selective or partial implementation undermines the authority of the Council and weakened its ability to fulfill its mandate. To enhance compliance, monitoring, reporting, and periodic reviews, mechanisms should be strengthened to promote timely, impartial, and effective implementations. While Security Council resolutions must be fully implemented, judgments of the International Court of Justice given their legally binding nature, must also be— must not be violated under any pretext whatsoever. Mr. Co-Chair, Cambodia emphasizes that achieving the objective of Security Council resolutions ultimately depends on their full and effective implementation by member states, including parties concerned. I thank you.

Thank you. I thank Cambodia and now give the floor to Nepal.

Distinguished co-chairs, first I appreciate China and Pakistan for convening this very important meeting. I also thank the distinguished briefers for their valuable and substantive contributions. Co-chairs, the UN Charter remains a cornerstone of the international legal order and the foundation of our collective security. In this spirit, the Security Council is entrusted with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Articles 2.2 and 25 of the Charter underscores the obligations of all member states to fulfill in good faith the obligations and to carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Yet the persistent gap often remains between the adoption of the resolutions and their effective implementations on the ground. When Security Council resolutions remain unimplemented, partially implemented, or selectively applied, the consequences extend far beyond procedural shortcomings. Such gaps risk prolonging conflicts, eroding trust, constraining humanitarian access, and ultimately undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the multilateral systems. Co-chairs, against this backdrop, allow me to highlight 4 points. First, we must reaffirm our collective commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and to the faithful primarily and non-selective implementations of the Security Council resolutions. Second, the Council should continue to ensure that its resolutions are clear, realistic, and implementable, with mandates grounded in measurable objectives, adequate resources, and achievable timelines. Third, broader consultations with states and relevant stakeholders can further enhance implementation prospects. Similarly, enhanced engagement with troop and police-contributing countries is equally vital, as their operational experience helps ensure that mandates are realistic and responsive to conditions on the ground. Fourth, strengthen monitoring, reporting, and follow-up mechanisms within existing mandates can help identify challenges early and support more effective implementations. Co-chairs, strengthening compliance with Security Council decisions is not merely a procedural matter. It is an investment in conflict prevention, sustainable peace, international stability, as well as trust and credibility of the multilateralism. Bridging the implementation gap Demands stronger cooperation, sustained political will, adequate resources, and shared commitment by all member states to uphold the Charter. Let us renew our resolve to close the implementation gap and strengthen trust in our shared institutions. I thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

Thank you so much for the floor, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, everyone. Liechtenstein shares your concern with the non-implementation of resolutions of the Security Council and is pleased to see you raise the issue today. We see an increasing trend in which members of the Council, those states who are directly involved in situations addressed by the Council, and even those in the wider membership of the UN fail to fulfill their obligations to implement Council resolutions either in word or deed. For Liechtenstein, the Charter is extremely clear. As per its Article 25, all Security Council resolutions are binding. Article 2.2 reinforces our collective obligations in this respect. That member states increasingly feel emboldened to subvert these obligations is indicative of today's present and deplorable trend toward disregard for international law. Mr. Chair, there are, of course, various ways in which states can fail to carry out the obligations we discussed today. Perhaps the most egregious are the numerous occasions in which member states have publicly said that they do not intend to implement a particular Council resolution. In a similar vein, But different in scope, we have heard Council members casting doubt on the binding nature of a resolution at the time of adoption, a statement that only seeks to undermine its implementation. Of course, if members do not consider Council resolutions as binding, there are also nothing to distinguish them from GA resolutions, which could indeed be pursued. Another related trend is the undermining of sanctions regimes by Council members, either directly or by allowing sanctions violations to take place within their jurisdictions. On some occasions, states unwilling to apply UN sanctions regimes have simply denied the existence of the relevant regime. Finally, we see the ongoing failures across the board for states to live up to their obligations created by country-specific resolutions of the Council. In almost every situation under the Council's consideration, states have either illegally used force themselves or sent armed groups acting on their behalf in violation of their commitments to maintain international peace and security. In some instances, states have even allowed to use of their territories by another state to commit aggression against a third state. The illegal use of force is, after all, frequently central to the reasons for these situations having arrived on the Council's agenda in the first place. As has been discussed today, the Charter requires all states to commit to its implementation, even if they have not actively supported each decision of the Council. This is the basis under which the promise of the Charter is realized. In the long run, the clearest remedy for objecting states is to recommit to the purposes and principles of the United Nations in their international affairs, to prevent war and make peace. Liechtenstein looks forward to working with all member states to this end. I thank you so much.

I thank you. I think we've just made it. We have just one speaker remaining, that is Venezuela, and I would like to thank the interpreters for their excellent job.

Serbia also? Serbia. Serbia also? Serbia also.

Yeah, okay, we have two then. The interpreters have agreed to stay a bit more for about 10 minutes, so I would like to give the floor I'll give the floor to Venezuela, followed by Serbia.

Senhor Co-President. Co-presidents, the United Nations Charter enshrines the fundamental principles of international law— modern international law, that is. It stands as the first multilateral instrument which is legally binding and prohibits the use of war as a foreign policy instrument. Moreover, The United Nations Charter stands as the crucial code of conduct that has governed international relations over the last 80 years. It is rooted in the respect for sovereign equality of states and the right of peoples to self-determination. The universal nature of its principles and purposes make the Charter a crucial instrument for the preservation of international peace and security. As well as for strengthening the rule of law, promoting economic development, and furthering social progress for all of humankind. Co-presidents, we are concerned by the growing trend towards unilateral practices, including the imposition of unilateral coercive measures that run counter to international law. We are also concerned by the flagrant disregard for historic agreements and the erosion of the role played by multilateral instruments. The lack of implementation of Security Council resolutions could have grave implications for the very viability of the international systems. It is impossible to foster international security within a system in which norms and institutions that give it life are blatantly ignored. The weakening of the Council's authority can lead to eroding trust multilateralism. Undermining compliance with international law is also a consequence, and in the short term we might ultimately see the perpetuation of conflicts. The selective implementation of resolutions undermines the credibility of the multilateral system because it fuels perceptions that double standards are being applied, and it gives the impression that Security Council decisions are more in line with political interests than with the objective application of international law. We champion urgent reform of the Security Council in terms of a broader membership. It must review the way it adopts resolutions also in order to make them more effective and less politicized. Conditions underpinning current international relations make us think that the United Nations is ripe for Security Council reform, such as to make it more broadly geographically representative and more balanced. That will lend greater legitimacy to the resolutions and decisions that the Council may adopt and reduce the risk of politicization of the same. Finally, Venezuela reiterates its staunch commitment to the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as with the promotion of dialogue, tolerance, and solidarity between nations, strengthening an inclusive multilateral system and the full eradication of aggressions and full implementations of decisions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly in line with international law is also— are also things we are committed to. Thank you. Thank you.

And I'll give the floor to Representative Serbia.

Thank you very much. It's been a long day, certainly for our interpreters, but I'll try to make it as short as possible. Let me begin by thanking the organizers for convening this discussion on a subject that goes to the very heart of the credibility and effectiveness of the multilateral system. The question before us is straightforward but consequential: what happens when Security Council resolutions are only partially implemented, selectively construed, or gradually overtaken by political experience. Few examples illustrate this challenge more clearly than Security Council Resolution 1244. The resolution was adopted in 1999. Yet, it has not become an archival document. It remains relevant precisely because key elements of the framework it established continue to be disregarded and have yet to be fully implemented. It is worth recalling that the resolution emerged at a very particular moment in international relations. It followed the use of force against a sovereign state, without Security Council authorization, at the height of a unipolar era marked by confidence that the strategic preferences of the most powerful actors could substitute for collective decision-making under the Charter. It was also a period in which humanitarian narratives were increasingly employed to legitimize actions taken outside the established collective security framework. Within an international information space far narrower and less diverse than the one available today, Complex realities were recast into simplified binary narratives. Yet Resolution 1244 itself represented an implicit recognition that power alone could not provide a sustainable foundation for peace. It was an attempt to return a deeply divisive issue into a multilateral and legal framework. And this is precisely why its subsequent fate deserves careful reflection. The Resolution reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose legal successor is the Republic of Serbia. It established an international administration, envisaged substantial autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija, and provided a framework for a political settlement. It addressed the return of displaced persons and even envisaged the return of a a limited number of Serbian personnel. These elements formed a single political and legal package. Over time, however, different parts of that package were treated very differently. Some provisions remained central to international engagement, while others gradually faded from political practice. The result was not the implementation of Resolution 1244 in its entirety, but —an increasingly selective approach to its content. Most significantly, the framework established by Resolution 1244 was ultimately undermined by a unilateral declaration of independence and its recognition by a number of states, without a new Security Council resolution and without an agreed settlement between the parties. The divisions it created it created remain evident to this day. Moreover, its broader implications extended far beyond the Balkans. The debates it generated concerning territorial integrity, humanitarian intervention, the use of force without Security Council authorization, and the relationship between political realities and legal norms have since re-emerged repeatedly in other crises and other regions. This should not surprise us. So-called exceptional cases have a tendency to cease being exceptional. Today, many actors speak of a broader rupture in international relations. Even those who once championed what was then the dominant vision of the un— of the international order acknowledge that its promise of universal rules was not always matched by universal practice. Regardless of where one stands in these debates, it is difficult to deny that questions about the equal application of international norms have become central to discussions about the legitimacy of the global order. In that sense, Resolution 1244 is not only about Kosovo and Metohija. For Serbia, the lesson is straightforward: lasting solutions cannot be imposed. They cannot be sustained solely through power, nor through selective readings of international commitments. They must be grounded in dialogue, compromise, and respect for the principles of the UN Charter. As some of the questions first raised by Resolution 1244 continue to resonate far beyond the Balkans, perhaps the most important lesson is that durable solutions cannot emerge where agreed legal frameworks are treated as optional rather than binding. Therefore, the credibility of the UN-centered multilateral system depends not solely on the existence of the rules, but also on the confidence that those rules will be applied consistently. I thank you.

Thank you, Serbia. I would like to thank all participants for their contributions and especially our briefers. Before I give the floor to Ambassador Fu for his concluding remarks, I would just like to respond to some of the comments from my friend, the Ambassador of India. I feel obliged because I think he seemed to suggest that in the case of Chapter 6 resolutions, the rigor in terms of implementation was not required. This seems strange because at least I did not hear any other delegation saying that. In fact, we heard that both Chapter 7 and Chapter 6 resolutions need to be implemented. And because the representative of India also objected to Pakistan mentioning Jammu and Kashmir, while we heard that many delegations Americans referred to various situations in which they felt that there was a problem of non-implementation. It's not surprising for us because India is— as a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, has actually refused to implement the Security Council resolutions on this dispute, and even refusing to cooperate with the UN. We, we were talking about the, the UN, the good offices of the SG. Uh, they refuse to cooperate with all those mechanisms that are part of Chapter 6. And, uh, finally, Kashmir is an international dispute. It is on the agenda of the Security Council. It was never a part of India, and it is not and cannot be part of India, because this was the core question which is at the heart of the Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose was to determine the status of this territory, whether it wants to be part of India or Pakistan, and that status has not yet been determined because the resolutions have not been implemented. So in fact, to say that India is a part of— Kashmir is a part of India is in fact itself a violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. With this, I would like to turn back to Ambassador Fu for your concluding remarks.

Thank you, Co-President. I'll be very brief.

Colleagues, today we engaged in an in-depth discussion under the theme Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and the Maintenance of international peace and security. Despite the differing emphasis and perspectives, member states in their statements all underscore that the effective implementation of Security Council resolutions is essential to the maintenance of international peace and security and have offered valuable recommendations for further strengthening implementation of Council resolutions. And jointly conveyed a positive signal underlining the need to uphold the role and authority of the Council and advance the rule of law at the international level. Thank you again for your active participation. The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you all.