Description
UN Security Council decisions impact billions of people and yet its formal rules are minimal and tell us little about how decisions are made. Instead, informal, and often unwritten practices, form the basis of negotiations. This paper introduces and develops the concept of legitimation practices to analyse the UN Security Council’s decision-making. Legitimation practices shape the process and outcome of negotiations. ‘Internal’ legitimation practices, which relate to the legitimation of Security Council decisions such as prioritising unanimity, constrain and enable the text of resolutions. ‘External’ legitimation practices such as ‘doing something’, even if it cannot be implemented, relate to the legitimation of actors in the negotiations and shape whether decisions can be reached at all. This paper demonstrates the impact of legitimation practices within Security Council decision-making, focused on the case of Darfur. Security Council negotiations on Darfur are analysed to show how legitimation practices shape decision-making across a range of issue areas. Foregrounding legitimation practices sheds light on seemingly contradictory moments within Security Council decision-making, such as the United States enabling the referral of the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, despite longstanding objections to the court and the capacity to veto the decision.
