Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Russian Federation
Delegate Name: Makenzi Funderburg
Committee: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter (SCUNC)
Topic 1: Clarification of Article 51
Country: The Russian Federation
Topic Background
———————————————————————————————————————
Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the inherent right United Nations (UN) member states have to implore individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against them. Article 51 is the key exception to the prohibition on the use of force by UN member states as long as all actions taken are immediately reported to the Security Council and that the use of force halts immediately when the UN Security Council takes necessary measures to restore peace. Because Article 51 is one of only two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force among UN member states, the application of Article 51 is vitally important to the collective security system established by the UN Charter. Article 51 is also commonly used to justify a legal argument known as the “unwilling or unable” doctrine that is used to defend a state’s use of force in self-defense against non-state actors (NSAs) within a second state’s territory without that state’s consent, if the host state cannot or will not stop the threats.
Since 2021, the invocation of Article 51 has surged—notably cited 78 times according to Mexico—sparking intense debate over its legal scope. Much of this friction stems from the “unwilling or unable” doctrine, a controversial theory used by the U.S. and its allies to justify military action against non-state actors within a sovereign state’s borders without its consent.
The position of the Russian Federation is that Article 51 is intended to be used in light of imminent, past or current threats against both state and non- state actors. Evidence of this approach can be seen in Israel’s September 9 strike against Hamas leadership in Qatar. Following the operation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a joint statement justifying the action as a necessary measure of self-defense, citing Hamas’s ongoing aggression and the October 7 attacks. Israel officially notified the UN of its defensive intent on the day of the strike. However, we reject this justification and join Qatar in strongly condemning the operation. The Israeli stroke is not only a blatant disregard for international law but a gross neglect of Qatari sovereignty. Such actions undermine the very mediation efforts necessary for a comprehensive peace strategy.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Past International Action
———————————————————————————————————————
Article 51 was created and adopted during the 1954 San Francisco Conference, marking the second and last exception made to the general prohibition on the use of force among UN member states. It was originally designed to ensure that the prohibition of force in the Charter did not prevent nations from defending themselves. The Security Council acts to maintain international peace, and in order to protect peace, there is a need to establish the inherent right of member states to individual or collective self-defense against armed attacks.
In 1956, the Secretary General of the UN pursued the Security Council to come to a resolution regarding Article 51’s usage on the Palestine question. After Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked Israel, resulting in an armistice agreement, serious tensions and incidents between Israel and the other four states continued to occur. These tensions were bad enough that the UN Security Council passed resolution 113 on 4 April 1956 specifically about the Palestine question. A new precedent was also set that self-defense can’t be used as a loophole — only the Security Council can decide if it truly applies.
Article 51 ensures countries are able to defend themselves in light of an attack or threat and unfortunately threats and attacks are becoming increasingly common. Ensuring global peace is one of the UN’s fundamental goals, and peace cannot come without security. A state’s security is derived from the strength of its defenses against threats, which Article 51 ensures member states are allowed to exercise, barring a ceasefire, armistice, or similar measures.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Country Policy
———————————————————————————————————————
The Russian Federation most recently invoked Article 51 on February 24, 2022, in conjunction with treaties of friendship with the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, to claim it was assisting these entities against Ukraine. No armed attack occurred against Russia, but Russia has acted defensively and proactively against the imminent threat posed byUkraine. Rather than waiting for an armed attack to occur, Russia utilized Article 51 to justify the 2022 invasion as preemptive.
As per the request from the International Court of Justice in the Paramilitary Activities judgement, (para. 199) Russia has stated that the ongoing military operation involving Ukraine is not only an act of self-defense by collective defense of the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, with which Russia has freshly minted mutual military assistance treaties. Considering the mutual military assistance treaties, the existence of the agreements is of little legal significance vis-à-vis collective defense, for military assistance may be provided by another State based on an ad hoc request. As the President of the Russian Federation, Putin, noted, the two so-called republics have requested Russian assistance, thereby satisfying the requirement of request noted by the International Court of Justice in the Paramilitary Activities judgment (para. 199).
Furthermore, with Russia’s security at the forefront of our minds, Russia will continue the legal military operation into Ukraine until the safety of the Russian people and her allies is achieved. The safety of Russia and the end of military operations into Ukraine depends on the recognition of Crimea and four other regions as Russian, Ukrainian commitment to stay out of NATO, and Ukraine’s demilitarization.
———————————————————————————————————————
Possible Clarifications
———————————————————————————————————————
Three clarifications are needed surrounding Article 51 so that member-states can continue to utilize defensive measures in accordance with the UN’s mission for peace.
First, preemptive military operations should be protected under Article 51, as only the member state acting in self or collective defense can decide what constitutes as a threat.
Second, in the event an armistice and or treaty is broken, only the UN Security Council need be involved in determining the consequences for breaking any such pact; no other entity has a say.
Finally, mandatory, time-bound reporting and review of any Article 51 self-defense claim should be required by the UN Security Council.
Global conflicts and wars are bound to occur in the world we live in today, and member states living in the world are going to have some level of involvement in them. The UN Security Council should continue working tirelessly in its efforts to maintain peace but until peace is achieved, member states have a right to continue to invoke Article 51 to defend themselves. The Russian Federation believes these clarifications would find support among states prioritizing sovereignty, Security Council authority, and legal accountability, including fellow permanent members such as China.
Sources:
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml#:~:text=Article%2051%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20Charter,the%20exercise%20of%20their%20right%20of%20self%2Ddefense.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.orzg/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php#:~:text=Security%20Council%20Report-,October%202025%20Monthly%20Forecast,maintain%20international%20peace%20and%20security.
https://www.culawreview.org/journal/applications-of-the-un-charters-article-51-the-use-of-self-defense-in-outer-space
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51/english/rep_supp1_vol1_art51.pdf
Russia’s “Special Military Operation” and the (Claimed) Right of Self-Defense
