WHAT is a UNSC resolution worth if it is never implemented? Pakistan and China felt compelled to convene an informal meeting of the UN Security Council earlier this week to discuss implementation of the body’s own resolutions. The session was aimed at discussing how the Council “can ensure the full, effective and non-selective implementation of its resolutions”. As Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN pointed out, UNSC resolutions are legally binding under the UN Charter. Other experts noted that the implementation of resolutions “lies at the heart of the Council’s credibility, authority and effectiveness”. They suggested that resolutions be accompanied by “realistic mandates, clear implementation pathways, sustained reporting, adequate resources, political will and follow-up mechanisms” to ensure they are acted upon. Pakistan also proposed some practical measures, including an annual review of progress on passed resolutions, clearer implementation pathways, and stronger follow-up. As our ambassador pointed out, “selective or prolonged non-implementation weakens the Council’s authority, prolongs unresolved disputes and deepens human suffering”. India-occupied Kashmir and occupied Palestine are both cases in point.

However, helpful as these suggestions are, the deeper problem is one that no procedural fix can address. The Security Council does not fail to implement its resolutions because of administrative difficulties; it fails repeatedly because its permanent members have diverging views on a number of issues, and the veto power allows any one of them to shield a favoured party from the consequences of disregarding the body’s resolutions. In other words, the UNSC’s dysfunction arises from politics rather than technical limitations. Of course, this does not detract from the effort by Pakistan and China to push a constructive, multilateral approach to addressing the dysfunction. At a time when powerful states increasingly seem to be abandoning it, they have signalled that the rules-based order, for all its shortcomings, is still worth defending. However, perhaps expectations should be tempered with the realisation that the gap between resolutions and realities can only be plugged when the powerful close it. No number of annual reviews and follow-ups will generate the great-power consensus needed to enforce UNSC resolutions. Where that consensus is absent, as has been the case in occupied Kashmir and Palestine, no amount of follow-up can get results. Closing that gap calls for a harder, more patient diplomacy aimed at the powers that hold the resolutions hostage.

Published in Dawn, June 28th, 2026