Ginger Without Borders

[This blog series was originally posted on the now-defunct website of American University, Washington College of Law’s Law and International Development Society in April 2021.]

Over the past two decades, the world has seen a variety of epidemics (e.g., HIV/AIDs, SARS, MARS, and Ebola) as well as pandemics (e.g., COVID-19). Epidemics and pandemics result in serious consequences for society, including significant decreases in population and overly-stressed healthcare systems. As a result, the United Nations (UN) Security Council has begun to adopt policies to address epidemics as a “threat to peace and security,” and it is imperative that this evolution in the practice of the UN Security Council continue.  

The spread of disorder and discontent within a State’s population due to health emergencies can result in increased tensions between States, ultimately amounting to a threat to international peace and security. This tension is exacerbated by the closure of national borders to individuals from States affected by the crisis, in violation of international law. Such border closures have been extremely common during the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein numerous States have closed their borders to foreigners. Tensions have also arisen from the increase in anti-Asian racism and xenophobia worldwide, and the tremendous toll of COVID-19 on humankind. Only one year into the pandemic, there have already been over 100 million confirmed cases and almost 3 million deaths globally.

As the leading institution for global cooperation, the UN plays a key role in the global response to public health crises. The Charter of the United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights(1948) both recognize the right to health as an innate human right. Further, several UN bodies and agencies are tasked with addressing the issue of health: the General Assembly (GA), Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the World Health Organization (WHO); UN Population Fund (UNFPA), UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Traditionally, however, the UN Security Council was not one of the organs of the UN that would address the issue of health.

While it is the only legally binding organ of the UN, the Security Council has strict criteria that must be met before it can exercise this power. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council is given the ability to declare situations to be a threat to peace and security. The Council may consequently adopt legally binding enforcement actions that require States to comply with the measures outlined to maintain or restore international peace and security. In accordance with Article 42, such measures may include use of force. Accordingly, by declaring a crisis a “threat to peace and security,” the Security Council unlocks a significant amount of power to control the international response to the crisis. However, such situations normally involved armed conflicts – not public health crises – consequently the Security Council did not address pandemics or epidemics.

The traditional practice of the UN Security Council changed in January 2000 when it addressed the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a serious threat to international peace and security. This evolution in practice was prompted by the tremendous toll of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on Africa, and the subsequent threat to peace and security for the region as a whole. As the President of the Security Council noted: “When 10 people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected every minute; when 11 million children have already become AIDS orphans, and many must be raised by other children; when a single disease threatens everything from economic strength to peacekeeping, we clearly face a security threat of the greatest magnitude.”

Today, COVID-19 has seriously impacted peace and security worldwide. Due to the highly contagious nature of the virus, numerous institutions closed and moved discussions to an online platform, opening them up to cyber-attacks. Moreover, COVID-19 abruptly halted the work of the UN peacekeeping missions, who have had to refocus their efforts on disease containment rather than their originally mandated peace work. This potentially undermines the ability of UN peacekeeping missions to fulfill their mandate.

Consequently, COVID-19 has rapidly increased the evolution in the practice of the Security Council – and the UN as a whole. The Security Council has held two videoconferences on the pandemic: a high-level open debate on “Pandemics and the Challenges of Sustainable Peace,” and a summit-level debate on “global governance after COVID-19.” Further, on 1 April 2020, the General Assembly passed resolution 270 (A/RES/74/270), recognizing COVID-19 as a grave threat to the international community, inflicting unprecedented and devastating effects on the livelihood of people worldwide.

On 1 July 2020, the Security Council passed resolution 2532 (S/RES/2532), explicitly recognizing the “unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” The resolution stresses the impact of COVID-19 on existing crises and consequently implemented legally binding provisions. The most notable of these measures include: demanding “a general and immediate cessation of hostilities in all situations on its agenda;” calling upon “all parties to armed conflicts to engage immediately in a durable humanitarian pause for at least 90 consecutive days, in order to enable the safe, unhindered and sustained delivery of humanitarian assistance, provisions of related services by impartial humanitarian actors;” and affirming that the cease in operations does not apply to those conducted against Da’esh or other terrorist groups due to the threat these groups pose.

Despite the measures implemented by its different organs, the UN as a whole is struggling to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Political struggles between the United States and the rest of the world created serious issues with coordination and policy coherence during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Further, many States are accused of limiting human rights for their populations under the pretext of limiting the spread of the virus.  For example, some countries have used the pandemic as a pretext to limit freedom of speech, while others have used the pandemic to justify limiting democratic institutions. Unfortunately, the UN – and the international community in general – has done little to properly addressed this issue as they are currently preoccupied with containing the spread of COVID-19.

In conclusion, as a result of the threat epidemics and pandemics pose to international peace and security, the Security Council practices evolved over the past two decades to recognize global health crises as an immediate threat to peace and security. The result is a generally better response by the international community. However, there is still significant room for improvement. The international community must continue to develop in its understanding of the threat posed by public health emergencies in order to better cooperate together to address these emergencies in the future.