Joint Nordic Statement at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) on 18 March 2024

Check Against Delivery

Excellences, Co-Chairs,

I have the honour to make this intervention on behalf of the Nordic countries, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark.

First of all, thank you to the Co-Chairs for hosting us yet again in this useful structured dialogue on individual reform proposals. We believe this new format has enriched and renewed the reform discussions, and we wish to thank in particular Liechtenstein, Mexico, and the L.69, G4 and UfC groups for engaging constructively with the format and submitting their own respective reform proposals. We encourage other groups and individual states with concrete reform proposals to also submit their models for discussion in this year’s session.

Co-Chairs, Ambassador,

We read UfC’s proposal with keen interest. And while the Nordic countries have long supported expansion in both categories of the Security Council, we have taken note of several interesting elements in the proposed reform model.

First, we note that UfC’s model aims to increase flexibility and democracy in expanding the Council. In this way, the proposal would also increase the important element of accountability of more Security Council members to the general membership through elections. And, as with other models, compared to the status quo, the proposal would contribute to making the Council more reflective of current global political and economic realities, as well as ensure increased and more equitable global representation.

Second, the Nordic countries agree with the UfC group that reform negotiations, and indeed any reform, should include how to best limit the use of the veto . We believe that further reforms are urgently needed to ensure that if a veto is cast, it is done so in line with the broader purposes and principles of the UN Charter, not in contradiction to the obligatory abstention of a party to a dispute in Article 27 (3), and with the requisite accountability to the general membership. A veto should not paralyze Council action on critical matters of international peace of security. This is particularly important in the current situation on the Council. Moreover, in line with the ACT Code of Conduct, the veto should not halt Council action aimed at preventing or ending the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

Third, the Nordic countries positively note UfC’s numerous proposals to review the working methods of the Security Council. We agree that flexible, inclusive and transparent decision-making processes should be absolute key aspects of any reform model, however we also note that almost all of these proposals can and should be addressed in the short term and not wait for comprehensive reform of the Council.

Ambassador X,

Having read UfC’s proposal, we would like to use this opportunity to ask a couple of questions to better understand the proposed model.

First, we took note of the UfC group’s openness to a compromise solution related to the possibility of longer-term seats, while at the same time affirming its principled opposition to the permanent category of membership. In this relation, we would like to inquire about your openness to a review clause similar to proposals made by other groups and individual states in this year’s IGN negotiations. For instance, in the event of an expansion with longer-term non-permanent seats, would you be open to considering the inclusion of a review mechanism that would take up all issues, including the question of permanent membership at a later time? In this regard, one option could be to include a review after a certain number of years that would consider converting the – at that point well-established - longer-term non-permanent seats to permanent seats if desired by member states at the given point in time.

Second, the Nordic countries note that the Common African Position includes the demand to acquire the same rights and powers as the current five permanent members as a matter of equality. In your proposal, you note that the UfC group is willing to further consider how to best advance proposals aimed at limiting the use of the veto. In this connection, we would like to ask if the UfC group has a suggestion for a potential compromise on the question of the veto, is there any level of limits on the use or scope of the veto that could make its extension to new members acceptable?

Co-Chairs,

Finally, we would like to once again thank you and the Member States and groups of states that have already engaged actively and constructively with the structured dialogues on individual proposals. We hope this format will be considered for next year’s IGN session and encourage similar innovative initiatives in the future to further revitalize our reform discussions.

Thank you.