Comments on: Can UNSC Presidential Statements be Legally Binding? http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-unsc-presidential-statements-be-legally-binding/ Blog of the European Journal of International Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:55:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Patthara Limsira http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-unsc-presidential-statements-be-legally-binding/comment-page-1/#comment-283 Patthara Limsira Thu, 28 May 2009 14:19:31 +0000 http://www.ejiltalk.org/?p=841#comment-283 Dear Francesco Messineo, Thank you raised this issue. Please correct me if I wrong, it is my first time. From my knowledge, the mandate of SC is under article 25, which created legal biding to a SC resolution. Moreover under article 103 which allow this resolution’s obligation prevails other. The Presidential Statement did not fill within this category. If SC wanted it to be legal binding, it must be resolution not a statement. I think this could be the other unilateral act of State that wanted to create other political tool that hallucinate to be legal binding which shall prevail other international obligations. Dear Francesco Messineo,

Thank you raised this issue. Please correct me if I wrong, it is my first time.
From my knowledge, the mandate of SC is under article 25, which created legal biding to a SC resolution. Moreover under article 103 which allow this resolution’s obligation prevails other.
The Presidential Statement did not fill within this category. If SC wanted it to be legal binding, it must be resolution not a statement.
I think this could be the other unilateral act of State that wanted to create other political tool that hallucinate to be legal binding which shall prevail other international obligations.

]]> By: Francesco Messineo http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-unsc-presidential-statements-be-legally-binding/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Francesco Messineo Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:28:27 +0000 http://www.ejiltalk.org/?p=841#comment-204 Marko - A very interesting point, especially in that you point out that the requirement for presidential statements is consensus, which would appear to be procedurally *more* than is required for resolutions. However, two things: a) It is true that consensus is indeed harder to get in the abstract; but it may be easier in practice to achieve it in the case of presidential statements precisely on the basis that the majority of scholarship and the practice so far does not go in the direction that they are binding in the sense of article 25 UNC. - Otherwise I suspect some of the P-5 would not have renounced the possibility of a veto. b) On the other hand, it should also be mentioned that at least some people interpret article 25 UNC as meaning that *all* resolutions, not just Chapter VII resolutions, are binding on member states; this seems to me the best construction of article 25, both as a matter of what the text says and its policy outcome. But I suspect article 25 could *not* be interpreted as including presidential statements because they are at least so far used as political-diplomatic instruments rather than norm-creating decisions. But mine here is of course a tautology derived from practice (a statement is a statement and not a decision; well, who says?) - Developments are, indeed, possible, but I would not attach too much emphasis to what it is the best political position for the US and the UK governments to have at this very day and moment. In other areas where presidential statements have been used in the past, I suspect the same countries would not have agreed / might not agree in the future. Has anyone studied this in any depth? Marko – A very interesting point, especially in that you point out that the requirement for presidential statements is consensus, which would appear to be procedurally *more* than is required for resolutions.

However, two things:

a) It is true that consensus is indeed harder to get in the abstract; but it may be easier in practice to achieve it in the case of presidential statements precisely on the basis that the majority of scholarship and the practice so far does not go in the direction that they are binding in the sense of article 25 UNC. – Otherwise I suspect some of the P-5 would not have renounced the possibility of a veto.

b) On the other hand, it should also be mentioned that at least some people interpret article 25 UNC as meaning that *all* resolutions, not just Chapter VII resolutions, are binding on member states; this seems to me the best construction of article 25, both as a matter of what the text says and its policy outcome. But I suspect article 25 could *not* be interpreted as including presidential statements because they are at least so far used as political-diplomatic instruments rather than norm-creating decisions. But mine here is of course a tautology derived from practice (a statement is a statement and not a decision; well, who says?)

- Developments are, indeed, possible, but I would not attach too much emphasis to what it is the best political position for the US and the UK governments to have at this very day and moment. In other areas where presidential statements have been used in the past, I suspect the same countries would not have agreed / might not agree in the future.

Has anyone studied this in any depth?

]]>