Questioning the Criminal Justice Imperative: UN Security Council Procedure and the Downside of Chapter VII Decision Making for the Adjudication of International Crimes

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

The Security Council’s structure as a small but powerful executive, combined with its primary responsibility for international peace and security, leads to a presumption against the application of ordinary standards of procedural fairness. At the same time, explicit provisions of the Charter and its own rules of procedure indicate that some balance was to be struck. This article questions whether the attainment of international criminal jurisdiction through Security Council decision-making really outweighs the need to ensure procedural integrity in every step of the process. It posits that a lack of procedural fairness in the Council's methods of work at least undermines the justice imperative that the Council so espouses and at most violates an ancillary legal obligation.
Original languageEnglish
JournalGlobal Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations
Pages (from-to)327-350
Number of pages24
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jun 2019

Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and

No data available

ID: 204190843