By Richard Gowan
During discussions on the Pact for the Future this year, the negotiators often worried that the section of the text on peace and security would be notably thin. When Secretary-General Guterres launched the Summit of the Future process in 2021, he downplayed international security concerns, focusing instead on technology and economics. In the wake of Russia’s all-out aggression against Ukraine, diplomats felt that it was important that the Pact address security issues. But few could see many topics in this field on which consensus was likely.
The Pact for the Future provides a useful à la carte menu of options for the UN secretariat and member states to bolster cooperation.
Set against these low ambitions, the Pact has exceeded expectations. Chapter 2 of the document contains a worthy – if rarely very original – set of priorities for strengthening UN crisis management and disarmament. Chapter 5 includes unexpectedly extensive language on the need for Security Council reform and positive references to the roles of the Peacebuilding Commission and General Assembly on peace and security matters. The Pact does not offer groundbreaking concepts about maintaining international security. Still, it does provide a useful à la carte menu of options for the UN secretariat and member states to bolster cooperation.
A Pact in the Context of Shifting International Orders
Most of these options refer to existing UN mechanisms and processes, and encourage states to move these forward a little more expeditiously. Action 21 includes a call for the Secretary-General to undertake a “review of all forms of United Nations peace operations”. This reflects a growing sense among New York-based diplomats that the UN has recently been underselling the strengths of Blue Helmet peacekeeping operations and Special Political Missions (SPMs). Actions 18 and 44 endorse steps to strengthen the UN’s peacebuilding architecture, which is timely as member states will review the work of the Peacebuilding Commission and associated mechanisms in 2025. The Pact’s language on issues, including the Women, Peace and Security agenda and disarmament, reiterates the importance of states’ existing commitments.
This does not mean the Pact is entirely backward-looking. Action 22 is a suggestive – if unspecific – call for greater international cooperation on maritime security. This is not unprecedented (the Security Council has addressed piracy off the Horn and Gulf of Guinea, for example) but could be a springboard for new initiatives in the wake of recent Black and Red Seas crises. Action 27 pushes the envelope (admittedly tentatively) on the need to step up efforts to address the security implications of new technologies, not least the danger of an arms race in Outer Space.
What does the Pact for the Future mean for International Geneva?
For those reading the Pact in humanitarian agencies in Geneva, the text contains useful material on the need to promote the protection of civilians in conflict (Action 14) and better respond to humanitarian emergencies (Action 15). However, both sections essentially rehash existing international commitments in these fields without making concrete suggestions about how to persuade states and non-state armed groups to respect international humanitarian laws and norms. Action 15 acknowledges the need for more funding for humanitarian response, but it does not offer any guidance on unlocking this money. The Pact is thus a useful advocacy tool for the humanitarian community to address their challenges, but not a roadmap to fix them.
The Pact also offers a scattering of openings for human rights experts who want to assert the importance of rights-based approaches to conflict prevention and resolution, but they are not very substantive. The text frequently nods to the importance of international human rights law. It does not, however, include an extended discussion of how the UN human rights architecture can do more to address conflict risks. In contrast to the positive language on the Security Council, General Assembly, and Peacebuilding Commission, the main Pact does not refer to the Human Rights Council at all (it gets a single passing nod in the Global Digital Compact, which is added to the main text). Western countries also agreed to water down a call for a review of the resource needs of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights due to objections from Russia.
The human rights community will thus need to be creative about how it reads Chapter 2 of the Pact (there is more meat for it in other parts of the Pact). One interesting opportunity may lie in Action 17, which calls for states to develop and implement voluntary “national prevention strategies and approaches to sustain peace”. This is primarily a hook for the peacebuilding community to lobby for resources for conflict prevention and reduction initiatives. Still, it is also easy enough to argue that respect for human rights is an essential component of sustaining peace (this overlaps with Action 7 in Chapter 1 of the Pact, which repeats the Sustainable Development Goals’ emphasis on developing “peaceful, just and inclusive societies” and places a heavy emphasis on human rights). Many New York-based diplomats flag the Pact’s call for national prevention strategies as an encouraging hook for policy development, and it would be logical for them to coordinate with their counterparts in Geneva on how to flesh out this opportunity.
The implications of the Pact language on disarmament for Geneva-based diplomacy are easier to see. Actions 25, 26, and 27 cover a gamut of disarmament issues. Nuclear non-proliferation to the weaponisation of new technologies. Some of this language – such as that on nuclear matters – adds little new to existing agreements. However, Action 27, with a focus on updating the UN’s disarmament architecture to meet recent technological advances, offers a series of hooks for policy initiatives in this space.
Diplomats, officials and civil society representatives in New York and Geneva should look to the Pact for the Future as a starting point for policy entrepreneurship on peace and security matters.
Regardless of the exact field they work in, diplomats, officials and civil society representatives in both New York and Geneva should look to the Pact for the Future as a starting point for policy entrepreneurship on peace and security matters. The text contains few, if any, definitive answers to the major crises and disturbing trends in international security today. However, it includes some ideas and phrases that smart policy thinkers can use to advance their particular agendas.
About the author
Richard Gowan oversees Crisis Group’s advocacy work at the United Nations, liaising with diplomats and UN officials in New York.
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Geneva Policy Outlook or its partner organisations.
