Description
In the early post-Cold War period the UN Security Council (UNSC) began a process of significantly redefining accepted practices when it came to addressing human rights abuses as a potential threat to international peace and security. Whilst this process has been largely uneven in its application, the Council over time has shown a greater willingness to receive human rights information. However, as we enter a far more contested security environment, one shaped by increased great power competition, there are new and emerging tensions that have further weakened the Council’s role as a forum for connecting human rights to international security challenges. In light of these tensions, it is possible to highlight a range of informal practices that have evolved in response to these tensions and the restrictive nature of formal rules within the Security Council. Many of these informal practices have been driven by the growing influence of elective UNSC members and the need to better connect the work of the Human Rights Council to New York. In exploring these new diplomatic dynamics within the UN, this paper draws on a novel theoretical framework that advances and further conceptualises the connections between international practice theory and constructivism. Through this theoretical framing, the paper examines contestation as a form of practice and assesses how informal practices develop in response to contestation over time. Focusing in particular on the work of ad hoc informal groupings of states, the paper provides new insight into the drivers of practice innovation, as well as the challenges faced by states working to strengthen the role of human rights in UNSC decision making.
