Has the United Nations Security Council Failed Myanmar?

• In Event: NGOs, IOs, and Human Rights Protection

Abstract

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) received international criticism for its perceived failure to address the violent conflict and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, as well as the erosion of its democratic government from 2017 to 2022. Existing research extensively examines great power politics within the UNSC; however, there is a notable gap in understanding how member states strategically utilize formal and informal governance to shape international policies and crisis responses. I posit that leveraging informal governance mechanisms enables UNSC member states to influence policies and institutional responses, especially when formal Council actions are counterproductive or out of reach. The ability to strategically switch between formal and informal governance is crucial for non-permanent members, allowing them to navigate veto power paralysis and overcome policy disagreements. States are more likely to use informal governance when interest homogeneity and information availability are low, yet states’ preferences to engage with an issue, are high. Through a mixed-method approach involving process tracing and quantitative analysis spanning five years, this paper offers a comprehensive understanding of the UNSC's strategic utilization of formal and informal governance. The results affirm a causal relationship that links interest homogeneity, informational availability, and state interests to governance choice. The Myanmar conflict underscores the necessity of reframing the UNSC’s successes and failures, by considering both formal decision-making practices and the strategic use of informal governance, along with the often neglected role of non-permanent member states.

Author

• Stefanie I Kasparek, Albright College