South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is the world’s most established forum for safeguarding international peace and security. It has, however, suffered from significant deficiencies in legitimacy and effectiveness. The permanent five (P5) members control the Council’s agenda and block action on conflicts becaus...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Angela Muvumba Sellström, Suzanne Graham
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Johannesburg 2023-02-01
Series:The Thinker
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.uj.ac.za/index.php/The_Thinker/article/view/2358
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832583670031974400
author Angela Muvumba Sellström
Suzanne Graham
author_facet Angela Muvumba Sellström
Suzanne Graham
author_sort Angela Muvumba Sellström
collection DOAJ
description The UN Security Council is the world’s most established forum for safeguarding international peace and security. It has, however, suffered from significant deficiencies in legitimacy and effectiveness. The permanent five (P5) members control the Council’s agenda and block action on conflicts because of their own national interests and geopolitical rivalries. New research (see Graham, 2022; Olsson, Muvumba Sellström, and Chang, 2021; and for example, Bode, 2018; Pay and Postolski, 2022; and Farrall, Loisell and Prantl, 2020) suggests that the elected ten (E10) members are, however, able to project their own interests and preferences, and shape decisions from inside the Council, particularly on conflict situations and themes that affect Africa. Indeed, conflict in Africa makes up two-thirds of the Council’s workload, and 85% of UN military peacekeepers are deployed to the continent. This short article explores the recent memberships of Sweden (2017-18) and South Africa (2019-20). Elected states have played an active role in terms of promoting cross-cutting themes, including strengthening Africa’s Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and the women, peace, and security (WPS) agenda, to varying degrees. Elected members can distinguish their short tenures on the Council by signalling their contribution to global affairs through thematic events and resolutions. By presenting South Africa and Sweden’s record of conduct on these themes, the article explores differences and similarities in E10 practice. The main contribution is an illustration of how elected states pursue a common agenda, using diverse methods of engagement. This variation is important for understanding the UNSC, since it demonstrates the Council’s pluralist nature, and the interplay of its least powerful members through policy practices of specialization and interdependence.
format Article
id doaj-art-a1eff821ca9b4c0484f7ced6949c49f9
institution Kabale University
issn 2075-2458
2616-907X
language English
publishDate 2023-02-01
publisher University of Johannesburg
record_format Article
series The Thinker
spelling doaj-art-a1eff821ca9b4c0484f7ced6949c49f92025-01-28T09:01:59ZengUniversity of JohannesburgThe Thinker2075-24582616-907X2023-02-01941South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security CouncilAngela Muvumba Sellström0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1568-7776Suzanne Grahamhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5122-3330Uppsala University The UN Security Council is the world’s most established forum for safeguarding international peace and security. It has, however, suffered from significant deficiencies in legitimacy and effectiveness. The permanent five (P5) members control the Council’s agenda and block action on conflicts because of their own national interests and geopolitical rivalries. New research (see Graham, 2022; Olsson, Muvumba Sellström, and Chang, 2021; and for example, Bode, 2018; Pay and Postolski, 2022; and Farrall, Loisell and Prantl, 2020) suggests that the elected ten (E10) members are, however, able to project their own interests and preferences, and shape decisions from inside the Council, particularly on conflict situations and themes that affect Africa. Indeed, conflict in Africa makes up two-thirds of the Council’s workload, and 85% of UN military peacekeepers are deployed to the continent. This short article explores the recent memberships of Sweden (2017-18) and South Africa (2019-20). Elected states have played an active role in terms of promoting cross-cutting themes, including strengthening Africa’s Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and the women, peace, and security (WPS) agenda, to varying degrees. Elected members can distinguish their short tenures on the Council by signalling their contribution to global affairs through thematic events and resolutions. By presenting South Africa and Sweden’s record of conduct on these themes, the article explores differences and similarities in E10 practice. The main contribution is an illustration of how elected states pursue a common agenda, using diverse methods of engagement. This variation is important for understanding the UNSC, since it demonstrates the Council’s pluralist nature, and the interplay of its least powerful members through policy practices of specialization and interdependence. https://journals.uj.ac.za/index.php/The_Thinker/article/view/2358South AfricaSwedenUN Security Council
spellingShingle Angela Muvumba Sellström
Suzanne Graham
South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
The Thinker
South Africa
Sweden
UN Security Council
title South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
title_full South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
title_fullStr South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
title_full_unstemmed South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
title_short South Africa and Sweden in the UN Security Council
title_sort south africa and sweden in the un security council
topic South Africa
Sweden
UN Security Council
url https://journals.uj.ac.za/index.php/The_Thinker/article/view/2358
work_keys_str_mv AT angelamuvumbasellstrom southafricaandswedenintheunsecuritycouncil
AT suzannegraham southafricaandswedenintheunsecuritycouncil