The penholder system and the rule of law in the Security Council decision-making: Setback or improvement?

Abstract

This article analyses the decision-making process of the UN Security Council when it adopts outcome documents, such as resolutions, Presidential statements and press statements. It is commonly assumed that because of their veto power and permanency China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have greater influence than their elected counterparts in shaping those outcomes. In recent years, that control has been strengthened by the penholdership system. Under this practice, one or more members, usually France, the United States or the United Kingdom (P3), take leadership over a situation on the agenda of the Council. When ‘holding the pen’ a member often decides what action the Council should take, then drafts an outcome document that it negotiates with other permanent members before sharing the text with elected members. This article explores the development of this practice and its impact on the respect for the rule of law in the Security Council’s decision-making process. It argues that, while concentrating power in the hands of the P3, hence diminishing transparency and the opportunity for all members to participate in the decision-making of the Council, at the same time the penholdership system also provides an avenue to strengthen elected members’ influence in ways that promote respect for the international rule of law.

Power and Diplomacy in the United Nations Security Council: The Influence of Elected Members

“…It refers to a practice of continuous, individual or collective, leadership in the Council of particular members on specific issues on the Council's agenda (Sievers and Daws 2014). It means that the member 'holding the pen' assumes responsibility for a given issue and initiates all actions by the Council related to that issue, including drafting documents, chairing negotiations, holding emergency meetings, scheduling open debates and organising visiting missions (Loiselle 2020). In practice, the so-called P3, namely France, the UK and the US, are sole penholders on most country-specific items on the Council's agenda (Martin 2020).…”

“…In practice, the so-called P3, namely France, the UK and the US, are sole penholders on most country-specific items on the Council's agenda (Martin 2020). In light of this, it is often claimed that this arrangement substantially hinders the ability of the E10 to influence the Council's decision-making (Loiselle 2020).…”