Nemo Judex іn Re Sua and the "Standing Mandate" Procedure

Abstract

The institutional failure of the United Nations Security Council to fulfill its mandate to maintain international peace and security has long been a focus of attention and remains a central topic of discussion – both in intergovernmental and doctrinal contexts – regarding the United Nations reform. Art. 27(3) of the United Nations Charter enshrines not only the procedural right of veto but also the procedural obligation for a party to a dispute to abstain from voting on resolutions pursuant to Chapters VI and VIII (Art. 52 (3)); however, this obligation is often disregarded. Such deliberate actions constitute a violation of the fundamental legal principle of nemo judex in Re Sua, "no one may be a judge in their own case" – which is why this study is relevant. The aim of the study is to analyze the impact of the new procedure "Standing Mandate" procedure on the obligation of a United Nations Security Council member to abstain from voting if it is a party to a dispute, how it contributes to increasing the transparency and accountability of this principal body to the United Nations General Assembly, and whether this mechanism constitutes the initial phase of implementing elements of accountability for abuse of rights within the organization. The article examines and analyzes existing proposals for United Nations transformation, reviews the outcomes of intergovernmental debates on United Nations Security Council reform in recent years, and analyzes shifts in the core positions of states in this context against the backdrop of numerous contemporary armed conflicts that have engulfed the world, as well as the very reasons for such incremental changes in views and approaches. To this end, the study employed a dialectical method at the philosophical level; empirical methods, such as comparative analysis, observation, and description; general logical methods, such as analysis and synthesis; as well as a specialized legal method. Among the findings of this study, the following should be highlighted: an examination and analysis of current trends in shifting approaches to the transformation of the United Nations and the rationale behind them, a theoretical and legal analysis of the possibility of using the veto initiative to unlock the procedural obligation enshrined in Art. 27(3) as a response to abuse of rights, as well as a theoretical and legal analysis of the further development of the application of the "Standing Mandate" procedure. The impact of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 76/262 in the context of enhancing the role of this principal organ, as well as its influence on the introduction of preventive mechanisms for accountability for abuse of rights into United Nations practice, remains largely unexplored, particularly in domestic doctrine. Further doctrinal research into the legal nature of this mechanism, as well as its implementation through extra-statutory reform, is imperative.