Statement by Oļegs Iļģis, Charge d’ affaires of Latvia at the Arria Formula Meeting on “Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security”
New York, 23 June 2026
Excellencies, dear colleagues,
I thank China and Pakistan for convening this Arria-formula meeting and the briefers for their informative briefings.
The Security Council’s credibility is measured not only by the number of resolutions it adopts, but by the extent to which its decisions are carried out. Implementation of all Council resolutions is where the authority of the Council meets reality on the ground.
Article 25 of the UN Charter is clear: member states agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Article 2, Paragraph 2 further requires all members to fulfil their Charter obligations in good faith.
In this context, I would like to make three points.
First, implementation of the Security Council’s resolutions is a legal obligation, not a matter of political convenience.
When Council decisions are ignored, delayed or applied selectively, the consequences are not abstract. This directly causes prolonged conflicts, higher civilian casualties, and obstruction of life-saving humanitarian aid. This is why the language of resolutions matters. The Council must adopt mandates that are clear and operational. All member states have an obligation to implement Council decisions in good faith and this obligation applies equally to all 15 members of the Council. While the permanent membership carries a special responsibility.
Second, mandates adopted by the Council require particular attention and consistent follow-up.
The implementation gap is not limited to situations of conflict. It also affects the daily work of the Council's subsidiary bodies, sanctions committees, humanitarian reporting as well as monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
We remain concerned that for the second consecutive year there have been significant delays in the allocation of chairs of subsidiary bodies. The lack of timely leadership in these subsidiary bodies has affected Council’s ability to ensure continuity and oversight. This is not merely a working methods issue. It has real implications for sanctions regimes, expert panels, counterterrorism work, humanitarian exemptions, and other mandates that depend on full, active and responsible chairmanship. Ultimately, it leads to adverse consequences for the civilian populations who are meant to be protected by such instruments of the Council.
Third, the Council’s deadlock must not become a shield for non-compliance or impunity.
The problem is not the absence of legal obligations, but the absence of political will to enforce them. The Council may be divided. Follow-up may be blocked. Further action may be prevented by the veto. However, the Council’s paralysis does not erase obligations under the UN Charter and international law.
In this context, the veto should never be used to protect violations of the Charter or shield perpetrators of atrocity crimes. This is a basic, yet overlooked principle reflected in the Article 27, Paragraph 3 of the Charter. When the Council is unable to act, the wider UN membership has an important responsibility to uphold the Charter, support accountability, and prevent the normalization of non-compliance.
Dear colleagues,
Bridging the implementation gap is not a technical exercise. It is about whether the Council stands behind its own decisions.
For us, three principles are essential: legal obligations must be implemented in good-faith, Council mandates must be consistently followed-up, and the Council’s deadlock must not become an excuse for inaction. Only then can the Security Council preserve its authority and fulfil its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
I thank you!