Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Brazil
Delegate Name: Carter Baar
1945, the year that the UN Charter was ratified, has long been over. Several decades, almost a century, have passed since it was ratified and now several questions remain. Due to the fear of ostrichizing nations, the Charter was purposefully vague in many areas, but this creates many questions. Questions such as what exactly is a breach of peace have been asked since its creation and have only grown more potent since. Sadly, many States use this to their own advantage in order to pursue their own political objectives. As such, many Member States in possession of greater international influence (such as the US, UK, Russia, China, etc.) have used the ambiguity of Chapter 7, Article 51 to justify actions against terrorists, especially if they believe that countries who inhabit such terrorists are not able or willing to deal with the threat. This works as a loophole, giving these nations the legal authority to interfere in a country’s, which is typically one with less military and political power, individual affairs. At least with that line of reasoning. However, some Member States, typically developing or underdeveloped, worry about the implementation of this and the threat that it poses to their own national security. These nations include several Latin American and Caribbean countries with the most notable being Mexico and Brazil.
Brazil has repeatedly expressed concerns over broad interpretations of the UN Charter, especially those pertaining to the use of force such as Article 51. They worry that broad interpretations undermine the authority of the UN and when considering the implications of an Article such as #51, it has the ability to destroy the “carefully constructed constraints on the use of force under international law,” citing multiple “Article 51 letters” submitted using the dangerous line of reasoning that many Member States have used (Moorehead). Instead, Brazil supports a traditional view of Article 51; that is nations can only enact it if attacked by another state and that non-state organizations are not included. Declaring that this view helps maintain peace between Member States. Brazil’s view on this topic is influenced by their political alignment with developing nations, who are worried about foreign powers violating their sovereignty as well as their own fears. Furthermore, Brazil acknowledges that the main reason why States push for an expansion to Article 51 is due to terrorist activity. Brazil has expressed its concern in terrorism and has passed reforms that make it easier to “directly and immediately” implement sanctions proposed by the Security Council (Brazil Statement). It can be seen, however, that Brazil values sovereignty and uses diplomatic measures to counter terrorism rather than engaging in warfare. Brazil’s stance derives from Article 2(4) which states “[a]ll Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” (Charter of the United Nations), which supports Brazil’s use of diplomatic measures and disqualifies a broad interpretation of Article 51, allowing for military intervention.
Brazil believes that above all peace must be maintained between Member States and that a broader interpretation of Article 51 will bring a new age of conflict. As such, they support the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Article 51 pertains to only between States and would support an amendment specifying this. Furthermore, Brazil recognizes that the ambiguity of the identification of “terrorist” on the world stage has caused the possibility of broader interpretations of Article 51 and although Brazil would not support non-state organizations being added to Article 51, they still believe that action must be taken against terrorists. When considering the identification of terrorists, Brazil identifies them as individuals “using or threatening to use” dangerous weapons such as “explosives, toxic gas, poison” or other weapons capable of mass destruction, acting out of xenophobia and/or discrimination based on religion (Laws on Countering Terrorism Worldwide).
Works Cited
“Brazil statement — International Terrorism — Sixth Committee (Legal) — 77th session.” the United Nations, 2022, http://un.org/en/ga/sixth/77/pdfs/statements/int_terrorism/02mtg_brazil.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.” United Nations Treaty Collection, 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“Laws on Countering Terrorism Worldwide.” Laws on Countering Terrorism Worldwide, 2024, https://counterterrorlaw.info/country/brazil#:~:text=Brazil’s%202016%20law%20defined%20terrorism,or%20generalized%20terror%2C%20exposing%20individuals%2C. Accessed 10 2 2026.
Moorehead, Alex, et al. “Brazil’s Robust Defense of the Legal Prohibition on the Use of Force and Self Defense.” Just Security, 20 April 2018, https://www.justsecurity.org/55126/brazils-robust-defense-legal-prohibition-force/. Accessed 10 February 2026.
