Mass Atrocity Crimes and Human Rights Discourse at the UN Security Council

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the use, abuse, or nonuse of legal discourse by key actors within the UN Security Council. Focusing on the crimes enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the chapter looks at how legal discourse is used within the Council to argue whether such crimes are happening, whether such discourse successfully advances—or not—specific action by the Council to address these crimes, and how political considerations can generate the uneven invocation and application of legal terms and norms. Its three country-specific case studies (Myanmar, Syria, Yemen) point to self-serving double standards that, in addition to weakening overall coherence and adherence to international norms, are self-defeating for the Council in raising questions about its impartiality, accuracy, and efficacy in addressing atrocity crimes.