Clarification of Article 51

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Lebanon
Delegate Name: Reema Al-Taha

Article 51 is an addition to the Charter Of The United Nations that recognizes a state’s inherent right of individual or collective self defense. States may use this force if an armed attack occurs against them, until the UN Security Council takes the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 is one of the two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter. The other exception is when force is authorized by the security council under chapter Vll. Because it allows states to lawfully use force, Article 51 is central to the UN Collective Security System. In recent years, one of the most controversial developments in the interpretation of Article 51 has centered on the “willing or unable” doctrine, which is used to justify military measures on the territory of other states, including counter-terrorism operations.

The September 9 Israeli strike against Hamas leadership in Qatar reflects the reliance on the “unwilling or unable” doctrine, in interpreting Article 51 on the UN charter. Although Article 51 permits self defense after an armed attack, it does not authorize force on another state’s territory against non-state actors. The unwilling or unable doctrine, developed through state practice, argues that such force is lawful if its territorial state cannot or will not prevent a threat. In February of 2025, Mexico noted that since 2021 , Article 51 has been invoked on at least 78 occasions, a marked increase compared to previous years.

Article 51 was drafted during the San Francisco Conference on October 24, 1945 with the entry into force of the UN Charter on October 24,1945. Beginning in the 1970s Israel has wrongfully invoked Article 51 in order to justify unjust military operations into Lebanon as Article 52 does not allow for the indiscriminate or unlimited force Israel has been using against The Lebanese Republic (Lebanon). The UN Security Council has condemned Israeli military operations as Israel has claimed to be acting in self-defense but the amount of damages suffered by Lebanese citizens takes away the validity of Israel acting in self-defense as Lebanon has never and shouldn’t be considered a threat to the State of Israel, any claims otherwise are false.
Hostile member-states have begun to frequently and wrongfully invoke Article 51 to attack peaceful countries such as Lebanon. Countries in peacetime are forced into wartime by power-hungry countries, this goes to highlight the need for increased regulations on the use of Article 51 as it’s evident that currently member-states are abusing it.

Lebanon has never formally invoked Article 51 to justify unnecessary military action like other countries have. Lebanon’s leaders instead condemn Israeli and non-state actors such as Hezbollah’s that have invoked Article 51 to justify unjust actions including their ground invasions, airstrikes and even rocket fire use to takeover the great Lebanese Republic. These actions are unfortunately still occurring and have begun to threaten lebanese sovereignty as well as violate international law as multiple ceasefires have been broken on Israel’s and Hezbollah’s behalf. While Lebanon hasn’t invoked Article 51 in the name of self-defense; we have informally utilized the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli and non-state actors actions in order to assert Lebanese right to self defense.

Three Clarifications are needed involving the disproportionate use of Article 51 to put hostile member-states in check and to better protect member-states that have fallen victim to attacks in the name of countries acting in self-defense. Firstly, full-scale invasions and or widespread aerial/ground attacks are not protected by Article 51 as those actions are disproportionate when acting solely in self-defense. Secoundly, Another state intervening when another state is unable to control their territory should always be considered a violation of State sovereignty unless the state being protected has given explicit written permission to the other state to protect land not owned by them. Lastly, Article 51 is a temporary right and should not be invoked for a longer than a year. The Lebanese republic believes these clarifications are necessary to prevent member-state’s from overstepping as peace should be promoted by us, not wrongful attacks that will lead to unnecessary war.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Brazil
Delegate Name: Carter Baar

In order to discourage direct conflict between Member States, the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council power over deciding “what measures not involving the use of armed forces are to be employed” (Charter of the UN). By doing this, the UN promotes diplomatic actions instead of outright violence through providing tools to do just that. Unlike Article 51, however, it is not constrained to just States, but also non-State members. Meaning that the Security Council is able to create sanctions on organizations and even individuals, not just Member States. In the modern world, this has been the new focus of sanctions, which poses a couple issues. Subcommittees, not the Security Council, are responsible for tracking said organizations and individuals that are on these sanction lists. This has raised doubts and concerns within nations that do not entirely trust the UN. Furthermore, the intensity of said sanctions are debated between Member States and cause tensions when it comes to lifting these sanctions and doubts for the effectiveness of the system. Such doubts are only exacerbated by the fact that there is only one subcommittee that works on releasing sanctions from those who fit the criteria, and the single one that exists only focuses on Al Queda. Additionally, the Security Council itself has researched the ineffectiveness of sanctions and the results are not at all flattering.
Brazil, however, still sees the use in sanctions. They know that it is useful to preserve peace while also giving Member States a platform to levy punishments, for the other alternative is often outright conflict. With this mindset, Brazil has implemented legislation facilitating the passing of sanctions encouraged by the United Nations (Eversheds Sutherland). Furthermore, Brazil does not support unilateral sanctions, that is sanctions imposed by singular States or a group of them that is not supported by the United Nations with the intention for economic or political coercion (Brazil joins Russia in criticising sanctions amid push for local currency trade). As such, Brazil does not impose any autonomous sanctions themselves although they don’t implement all UN proposed sanctions. Once again, this derives from their fear of Member States with more economic and political power. Additionally, it undermines the efficiency of UN imposed sanctions, which Brazil considers as a crucial diplomatic tool.
Despite Brazil’s widespread support for Sanctions, they do recognize the pitfalls of the subcommittees which deal with tracking people who are impacted by UN sanctions. As such, they support the bolstering of these subcommittees so that work is not slowed down and by extent supports less Security Council oversight over who is hired to prevent positions from being blocked due to a deadlock between Security Council members. Furthermore, Brazil is concerned about the potential corruption that is caused by such recruitment methods as well as the corruption that would appear within subcommittees dealing with individuals who are exempt from modern sanctions.

Works Cited
“Brazil joins Russia in criticising sanctions amid push for local currency trade.” bne Intellinews, 2026, https://www.intellinews.com/brazil-joins-russia-in-criticising-sanctions-amid-push-for-local-currency-trade-424878/. Accessed 10 2 2026.
“CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.” United Nations Treaty Collection, 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“Eversheds Sutherland.” Brazil, https://ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/brazil. Accessed 10 2 2026.

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.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Slovenia
Delegate Name: Cohen Smith

Article 51 of the UN charter states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,” meaning that the UN itself will not inhibit any countermeasures taken by members to defend themselves (“Chapter VII: Article 51”). This loose wording has led to much confusion over the actual meaning of what is and what isn’t allowed under Article 51. These questions arise from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, pre-emptive strikes, and how the report given to the Security Council explaining each invocation of Article 51 should be provided.
Slovenia stresses the importance of the right to self-defense under Article 51 to member-states. During the Security Council meeting over the current Russia-Ukraine war, Slovenia defended Ukraine’s response to Russia by condoning Ukraine’s self-defense. Slovenia also supported aid sent to Ukraine to support their self-defense, but not to Russia, for being the aggressor in the conflict (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs). Slovenia is a firm believer in the rule of international law and believes that states should follow and uphold international law, and in the event of a violation, Slovenia calls for any member state’s actions to counteract the violation not to be impaired in any way. Slovenia calls for the supply of weapons to defending nations, such as Ukraine, not to be impaired in any way. As stated by the defense minister of Slovenia, “Slovenia has never imposed any limitations on Ukraine for the use of weapons it supplied it for the fight against Russia’s aggression” (STA). This also includes the use of force against the domestic territory of an aggressor state. Slovenia believes that states should work together to de-escalate tensions and prevent any strikes from being made in the first place, and as such, condemns pre-emptive strikes against other nations. Slovenia desires that Article 51 will not be utilized in any manner other than to protect the member state in a scenario of strictly self-defense in any scenario.
As a member of both the EU and NATO, Slovenia believes that any conflicts should be settled through peace talks and not force. Slovenia does not wish for any state be required to resort to force in order to settle differences among other nations. This also means that Slovenia desires to have stricter limitations on what Article 51 can be used as justification for. Slovenia does not desire a relatively minor conflict between states to escalate into armed conflict, and as such, believes that Article 51 should be used only when a fellow member is in a situation where the conflict is irreversible in its severity.

Works Cited
“Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications.” OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS |, https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml. Accessed 10 February 2026.
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. “Highlights of Slovenia’s activities in the UN Security Council in June 2024.” 3 July 24, https://www.gov.si/en/news/2024-07-01-highlights-of-slovenias-activities-in-the-un-security-council-in-june-2024/#:~:text=Slovenia%20once%20again%20drew%20attention,UNSC%20resolutions%20(DPRK%20equipment). Accessed 10 February 2026.
STA. “Šarec says Slovenia did not limit Ukraine’s use of donated weapons.” 28 May 2024, https://english.sta.si/3305648/sarec-says-slovenia-did-not-limit-ukraines-use-of-donated-weapons. Accessed 16 February 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Austria
Delegate Name: Keegan Troccko

Name: Keegan Troccko
Country: Republic of Austria
School: Grand Haven High School
Committee: SCUNC
Topic: Clarification of Article 51

Austria believes that Article 51 allows self-defense against non-state actors. The only time that Article 51 can be invoked is to justify the use of force against a non-state actor on another territory of another state if these two conditions are met: a transboundary element exists, or if the host state is harboring or substantially supporting the non-state actor. These two rules are very important to how Austria sees Article 51 and how they emphasize that force can only be used if the territorial state cannot, or will not, prevent the threat.
Any cyber attacks on a member state are also grounds for invoking Article 51, as Austria believes that cyber activities can lead to an armed attack. If there is an attack originating from another state, that is also a reason that a member state can invoke Article 51. Member states were invoking Article 51 too much; there have been cases increasing where armed force was applied so it is better if there are limits to using Article 51 so that member states don’t attack so frequently.
Austria believes that the Security Council, as used in Article 51, holds the primary responsibility for international peace. It is not the member states’ responsibility to take things into action by trying to solve it themselves; leave it to the Security Council’s decision. Austria believes that preemptive threats should not be a means to invoke Article 51; they view it as a violation of international law that lacks a basis in the UN Charter. As a neutral country, Austria believes that there should be as much cooperative promotion of peace as possible and only as much force as necessary. Austria fully supports the right to self-protection that is outlined in Article 51. Austria, among fellow member states including Mexico, China, and Brazil are against an over-expansive, broad interpretation of self-defense that has shown presence over the last 15 years.
Austria believes that Article 51 should be upheld and that the rules that were stated in the article are legally binding and not optional. They believe that everything in the article also relates to cyber activities and that they apply to cyber activities and threats as well. Austria is a part of the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy, they recognise the right to collective self-defense, while often navigating these commitments to protect its specific security and defense policy.
In summary, Austria believes that to rightfully invoke Article 51, you need to have one of the two conditions, that is, that there is a transboundary element, and if a host state is harboring a non-state actor that is attacking member states. Austria stands with the fact that Article 51 correlates to cyber attacks, and the self-defense under Article 51 is a good thing.

Works Cited
“Cyber Activities and International Law.” 23 April 2024, https://docs-library.unoda.org/Open-Ended_Working_Group_on_Information_and_Communication_Technologies_-_(2021)/Austrian_Position_Paper_-_Cyber_Activities_and_International_Law_(Final_23.04.2024).pdf. Accessed 09 February 2026.
“In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 30 September 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php. Accessed 9 February 2026.
“National Position of Austria (2024).” 18 November 2025, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/National_position_of_Austria_(2024). Accessed 09 February 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: United Kingdom
Delegate Name: Noah Bossingham

Article 51 is one of the most influential articles in the United Nations Charter, one of two parts that allow countries to use military force against other countries and people. This Article is one of the most influential articles when it comes to the use of military invasion and attack. The 80 times that Article 51 has been invoked since 2021 have caused it to come into question whether we need to redefine how the article functions. The stance of the United Kingdom is clear: the invocation of Article 51 must be allowed to defend a country’s homeland and its property.
Article 51 must be able to be used to defend the homeland by any means. Any country must be able to act in self-defense either during an attack or before one occurs, to use any force to stop the attacker. The ability to do this must be smooth and fast, as our government needs to be able to move and attack without the approval of the UNSC. Preemptive strikes must also be allowed to stop any threat discovered against our nation, most importantly, terrorism.
The Article in question must also be approved to be used to defend our nation’s property and people. There have been attacks on our shipping trade in the Middle East, and rebels have been attacking our ships, and Article 51 must be authorized to defend this. If we cannot the entire shipping and trading system will be under fire by anyone who wishes to cause harm for any reason.
The report to the Security Council should be a short, concise, but detailed description of the reason you invoked the article in question. These details should include a history of the knowledge of the attack and the attacks previously done in order to better inform the security council.
The most important thing that the UK must emphasize is the ability to perform self defense millitary operations easily, swiftly, and any new Interpretations of Article 51 must not get in the way of defending the homeland in a substantial way that disrupts military procedure and defensive operations.
The United Kingdom hopes to see a resolution further stating the previous interpretation of this rule stated in this paper, and also would like to see further rules punishing those who wrongfully invoke this law against other member states.

Work Cited
Buchan, Russell. “The Law of Self-Defense and the U.S. and UK Strikes against the Houthis.” Articles of War, 2024, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/law-self-defense-us-uk-strikes-against-houthis/#:~:text=Under%20Article%2051%20of%20the%20UN%20Charter%2C%20the%20exercise%20of,protect%20commercial%20shipping%20as%20well. Accessed 16 02 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Nigeria
Delegate Name: Aiden Lin

Nigeria itself has never had the need to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter, although it has needed to defend itself from armed groups, such as Boko Haram. These groups are a danger to Nigeria’s population, land, and economy. They have carried out attacks that have killed both civilians and government forces with a death count of around 40,000 people, and damaged the land through their suicide bombing.
Nigeria, under Article 51, believes that self-defense can only be invoked when there is an immediate threat to a country’s sovereignty. Countries must not rely on speculation and pre-emptive strikes because it doesn’t constitute self-defense. If a country does use self-defense, the force used must be equal to the force used against them. In addition, the defending country must not have caused the conflict with its words or behavior. Both the defending and aggressing countries should aim to keep civilian involvement and casualties to a minimum as well.
When a country tries to implement Article 51, Nigeria believes that they should submit a report to the United Nations stating what the attack targeted, its duration, the severity of it. It then should be reviewed by the United Nations to decide if the country’s use of Article 51 is legitimate. The country may defend itself immediately, but once the threat is over, they should send a report to the UN stating what measures they took and why. In addition to reviewing reports, in order to maintain international peace, the UN should adopt a restrictive interpretation of the meaning of self-defense, only allowing it in actual armed attacks to preserve state sovereignty. Nigeria also wishes to recognize the threat of cyber attacks on a country’s security and economy. They are comparable in damage to an armed attack and should justify a country’s use of Article 51 in a case of a cyber attack, reinforcing the importance of minimizing damage to civilians and infrastructure.
In order to better implement Article 51 of the UN Charter, Nigeria strongly advocates for improved oversight regarding countries’ use of it. By establishing clearer guidelines for what can be classified as a dangerous attack-anything that threatens state sovereignty, whether armed or cyber, it will lower the usage of Article 51 and prevent its misuse. When a country does use Article 51, after the threat is over, they must send a report to the UN charter stating the measures they took and the reasons behind it. The UN should also cooperate with regional organizations such as the AU or the EU when deciding. These organizations have a deeper understanding and involvement with the conflicts occurring in their respective regions. These views come from Nigeria’s past of being a British colony. Britain used Nigeria as a place for natural resources, disregarding its various ethnic groups and economic autonomy resulting in Nigeria’s view of self sovereignty.

Works Cited
Adu, Dayo, and Moroom Africa Legal Consults. “Self Defence Under Nigerian Law.” Mondaq, 12 Aug. 2022, www.mondaq.com/nigeria/crime/1220858/self-defence-under-nigerian-law. Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

African Union. Common African Position on the Application of International Law to the Use
of Information and Communication Technologies in Cyberspace. PAPS Digital Repository, African Union, 2021, papsrepository.africanunion.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/65bdfced-80d9-445b-b57f-31037616ccda/content . Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.
Jefferson, Ebuka. “Independence and the Role of History in Nigeria’s Nationalist Struggle: Historical Nigeria.” Historical Nigeria | Nigerian History & Cultural Heritage, 10 Jan. 2026, historicalnigeria.com/independence-and-the-role-of-history-in-nigerias-nationalist-struggle/.

Klobucista, Claire. “Nigeria’s Battle With Boko Haram.” Council on Foreign Relations, 31 Aug. 2011, updated 8 Aug. 2018, www.cfr.org/backgrounders/nigerias-battle-boko-haram. Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Hungary
Delegate Name: Maria Kamatoy

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter establishes the right of Member States to act in self-defense in case of an armed attack. States are generally prohibited from using force against one another under Article 2(4). Article 51 provides an expectation to this rule by recognizing the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs” against a Member of the United Nations. This is intended to be merely a temporary action and may only continue until the Security Council has taken necessary measures to restore peace. However, Article 51 has been a topic of significant disagreement among Member States, as its provisions continue to suffer from numerous ambiguities. For instance, the article does not clearly define what qualifies as an “armed attack”, leaving interpretation highly open. It also fails to specify whether states can act preemptively or preventively, nor clarifies how long such actions may continue before intervention of the Security Council is required. Similarly, requirements for reporting are vague. While states are required to notify the UN when acting in self-defense, the article does not clarify what information must be included in the report, allowing invoking states to excuse otherwise questionable actions with minimal UN intervention. A notable instance of misuse of Article 51 occurred in 2022, when a state claimed that Article 51 justified their invasion of another state. However, the invaded state had not committed any “armed attack” against it or any other U.N. member state. Even if attacks had occurred, Article 51 would not justify action in the case of self-defense because the contested regions were not U.N. members nor qualified as states under international law. Thus, these current ambiguities make Article 51 subject and vulnerable to misuse by states and emphasize the urgent need for the UN to provide clarification. To date, the United Nations has few measures to address the interpretation and application of Article 51, primarily through the Special Committee on the UN Charter (SCUNC). Debates have been hosted and reports have been received, but a binding clarification has not been produced to this date. In the 2024 opening session of the Special Charter Committee, it was noted that several delegations expressed concerns about the rising number of reports to the Security Council invoking Article 51 to justify armed attacks, especially against terrorist groups. Since 2021, Article 51 has reportedly been invoked at least 78 times by Member States that were seeking to justify armed action. A delegate of Mexico urged that “Article 51 cannot be invoked to justify a response to an armed attack that is carried out by a non-State actor that has no relationship with the State and should not undermine the territorial integrity of a Member State.” Mexico has also noted problems in which some Member States interpret Article 51 in different ways, some claiming that protecting commercial ships justify self-defense, with little debate on the legality of such actions. Hungary has not been directly involved in disputes over Article 51 and has not taken specific action in relation to the clarification of Article 51. However, the excessive ambiguities in the article impact the country’s security. As a member of NATO and the European Union, Hungary strongly relies on international defense agreements. This includes NATO’s collective defense under Article 5, which states that if one member is attacked, all members consider it an attack on themselves and respond collectively, and this closely links to the UN’s right to self-defense in Article 51. Hungary’s defense policies imply their support of international law, EU regulations, and other NATO commitments. The topic of Article 51 clarity is further important due to Hungary’s geographic location. Hungary borders Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria, which are regions that have experienced political instability and other territorial disputes. Misuse of Article 51 by larger powers could indirectly threaten Hungary’s borders, economy, and security, potentially resulting in economic disruption and also pressure to participate in collective defense. The country of Hungary is open to any other solutions that other countries are proposing as long as they respect further clarity of Article 51. Hungary believes that implementing a more standardized reporting process, requiring states to submit detailed evidence and justification when invoking Article 51, would ensure that claims of self-defense are transparent, legally justified, and subject to review by the UN. This also addresses the current problem that the legality of invoking the article is minimally debated. Moreover, Hungary believes that all UN members should follow clear UN guidelines that define what constitutes, specifically, an “armed attack,” the conditions under which preemptive or preventive actions are allowed, and how long self-defense can continue before the Security Council must intervene.
Works Cited
Buchan, Russell. “Self-Defence as an Exception to the Principle of Non-Use of Force: Debunking the Myth.” EJIL: Talk!, 29 Nov. 2023, www.ejiltalk.org/self-defence-as-an-exception-to-the-principle-of-non-use-of-force-debu nking-the-myth/. “Delegates Focus on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Right to Self-Defence as Sixth Committee Takes up Special Charter Committee Report | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Un.org, 12 Oct. 2018, press.un.org/en/2018/gal3573.doc.htm? Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. Hindsight, In. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php. ilrdigit. “An International Law Perspective on the U.S.’S Recent Strikes in International Waters – American University International Law Review.” American University International Law Review, 13 Jan. 2026, auilr.org/2026/01/13/an-international-law-perspective-on-the-u-s-s-recent-strikes-in-inter national-waters/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. “Opening 2024 Session of Special Charter Committee, Speakers Diverge on Sanctions, Self-Defence, Working Methods and World Court’s Role | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Un.org, 20 Feb. 2024, press.un.org/en/2024/l3297.doc.htm. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. Tsvety. “The Legal Foundations of NATO.” The Law to Know, 5 Sept. 2025, thelawtoknow.com/2025/09/05/nato/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. United Nations. “Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications.” Un.org, United Nations, 1945, legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Panama
Delegate Name: Mya Presley

Article 51 of the UN Charter allows countries to defend themselves if attacked, but its interpretation has become unclear, leading to misuse and prolonged conflicts. This issue affects many countries, especially smaller or neutral states like Panama, because unclear rules can justify unnecessary military actions and threaten global peace. Sanctions are often used as an alternative to force, but they can harm innocent civilians if not carefully applied. Recently, debates have focused on how to clarify Article 51 and improve sanctions to protect human rights and maintain international stability. Understanding these challenges is important for ensuring that self-defense is not abused. Panama supports a clear and strict interpretation of Article 51 to prevent its misuse in justifying long or unjustified wars. As a neutral country that values sovereignty and peaceful cooperation, Panama believes self-defense should be temporary and reported immediately to the UN Security Council. Panama is concerned that vague rules can harm smaller nations by allowing aggressive actions without proper oversight. Panama also believes sanctions should be targeted, legal, and monitored to avoid hurting innocent people. This stance reflects Panama’s commitment to peace, neutrality, and respect for international law. Panama actively supports UN peacekeeping and follows international laws related to self-defense and sanctions. It enforces UN sanctions transparently, especially in its financial and shipping sectors, including the Panama Canal, which is vital for global trade. Panama participates in international agreements that promote peaceful conflict resolution and respects the UN Charter’s principles. While Panama has seen some success in maintaining neutrality and enforcing sanctions, it recognizes that challenges remain in ensuring sanctions are fair and effective without unintended harm to civilians. Panama supports clarifying Article 51 by defining strict limits on the duration and scope of self-defense actions and requiring immediate reporting to the UN Security Council. Panama also proposes improving the design and enforcement of sanctions to ensure they are targeted at governments or groups responsible, not civilians. Finally, Panama encourages the creation of an international monitoring body to oversee sanctions and prevent abuses. These solutions align with Panama’s goals of promoting peace, protecting human rights, and maintaining international cooperation. Panama stands for a clear and responsible interpretation of Article 51 and careful use of sanctions to protect global peace and human rights. Panama believes international cooperation and transparency are essential to prevent misuse of self-defense and sanctions. Moving forward, Panama looks forward to working with other countries to strengthen the UN’s role in maintaining peace and security. Sources: – United Nations Charter, Article 51 – UN Security Council Resolutions on Sanctions – Panama Government Statements on International Law and Neutrality – Reports on the Impact of Sanctions on Civilian Populations

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Zimbabwe
Delegate Name: Reni Bejko

6 February 2026
Submitted To: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Republic of Zimbabwe
Topic: Clarification of Article 51

The Republic of Zimbabwe firmly believes in the principles and ideas of the United Nations Charter, and views Article 51, the self-defense clause of the UN Charter, as an important protection for countries facing armed attacks. However, Zimbabwe is concerned about the growing number of times Article 51 has been used in recent years and the broader ways it is being interpreted, which could weaken the clarity and authority of the Charter itself.
The Republic of Zimbabwe believes that the committee must prioritize the preservation of the original intent of Article 51 while preventing its interpretation beyond that of self-defense. Article 51 states that it allows for self-defense only in response to an armed attack, and only until the UNSC has taken necessary measures to restore peace. In recent years, however, Article 51 has been invoked with increasing frequency, which is disputed in its legality of its invocation and what classifies as self-defense, such as pre-emptive strike and/or the “unable or unwilling” doctrine, which allows a state to attack non-state entities/terrorist organizations within another state’s borders without their consent, which should be addressed in discussing the clarity of this article.
The Republic of Zimbabwe supports the adoption of guidelines that reaffirm that Article 51 ONLY applies to self-defense after an armed attack. Zimbabwe also proposes the idea of standardizing and formatting the recording and reporting of every Article 51 invocation, because while the UN Charter does require that measures taken in self-defense should be immediately reported to the UNSC, there is currently no standardized format requirement to justify that it is, indeed, self-defense. Zimbabwe proposes including evidence of an attack, justification for retaliation, and the specific actions taken by the invoker in the report. As a member of the African Union, Zimbabwe advocates for the implementation of early warning systems in conflicts to ensure conflict never begins to begin with, as it has been done with the African Union.
The Republic of Zimbabwe bases its current position on Article 2(4)’s clause of the prohibition of use of force, also noting that the 2025 Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations has already previously discussed the rising number of Article 51 invocations, also well as working on defining self-defense. For example, Article 51 letters submitted to the UNSC often have very wide variations of the proper justification for an invocation of Article 51, which signifies the need for standardization. Zimbabwe aligns itself with the verdict in the Nicaragua v. United States case, which reaffirmed the fact that self-defense requires an actual armed attack, including the illegality of supporting rebels in foreign nations and attacking non-state entities within a sovereign nation.
The Republic of Zimbabwe firmly believes that the right to self-defense is a necessary right for all nations, and clearer guidance on the actual lawful use of self-defense, as well as implementing stronger reporting standards, and early warning systems must be introduced so as not to allow for the Charter’s original intent to be undermined and the guarantee the sovereignty and security of all nations.

Works Cited:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
https://icj-cij.org/case/70
https://legal.un.org/committees/charter/2025_session.shtml
https://aupaps.org/en/page/200-early-warning
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3905536/files/A_75_993–S_2021_247-EN.pdf

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Venezuela
Delegate Name: Stella Yakima

02/06/2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Venezuela
Delegate Name: Stella Yakima
Topic: Clarification of Article 51

Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of nations to use self-defense against attacks carried out by other nations. It allows force to be used in self-defense until the Security council steps in. This article is vital to protecting national sovereignty as well as protecting the nation and its people in general. The unwilling or unable doctrine of this article is an especially crucial part that needs clarification because it expands upon the rights of self-defense and what it means for allied nations to defend each other as well as what constitutes an unlawful and unjust use of force.
The Nation of Venezuela is a strong supporter and advocate for national sovereignty yet still recognizes the importance of an international law. Article 51 is a necessary law to have as it provides a legal basis for use of force in the name of self-defense. Self-defense is a national right for any state to protect its people, resources, and sovereignty.
The nation of Venezuela strongly believes the purpose of Article 51 is to protect a nation after an attack for self-defense as opposed to being used preemptively to limit national sovereignty of another nation. Article 51 should only be used after an armed attack against a nation
As of late 2025 and into 2026, Venezuela has undergone multiple attacks and blockades by the United States of America primarily over disputes regarding natural resources. Venezuela has filed multiple complaints with the Security Council citing Article 51 as a primary reason as to why the attacks were illegal however without clarifications on how a proper report should be filed to the security council there will be .
Solutions and plans. The most problematic

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-asks-un-security-council-say-us-strikes-illegal-2025-10-16/
https://globalgovernanceforum.org/venezuela-stress-test-for-un-charter-system/
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2026/01/venezuela-emergency-meeting.php
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: China
Delegate Name: Owen Krueger

11/26/2025
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: China
Subject: Article 51
The People’s Republic of China recognizes that the Special Committee on the United Nations Charter has been one of the most important committees for strengthening the UN, and specifically its Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for nations to respond to an armed attack with military action. Since just 2021 this article has been invoked nearly 80 times. This article has been interpreted literally as purely to be used in response to an attack, and it has been interpreted as allowing for preemptive action against perceived threats in order to stop an attack against their nation.
China in its history has never invoked Article 51 but recognizes its importance in preserving national security and sovereignty of member states of the UN. It should however be made clear that a looser interpretation of the Article to allow for preemptive action against an alleged threat goes too far. This interpretation would have the UN Charter contradicting itself by saying that the UN was to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…”, but also allow nations to attack other sovereign nations on the claim that there was some kind of threat being posed by that state. Proving that there was going to be a threat is practically impossible. One nation guessing if another is going to attack them or not. Then that nation starting military action against the other nation depending on what the original nation thinks is not representative of the values shown in the UN Charter.
The People’s Republic of China believes that when it comes to disputes like this the United Nations Security Council and fellow member nations should step in for peaceful arbitration and de-escalation. China as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member nation of the UN has always worked to find peace internationally both on the UNSC and as an independent third party within Asia. The world will always be safer with more methods of negotiation and de-escalation, and this is the reason why China has worked to create the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed). The IMOed is an effective body which allows for safe and non biased ways for nations to get third party mediations in disputes especially in developing nations and those in the global south who have been unable to receive adequate assistance from the current systems.
It is the hope of the People’s Republic of China that Article 51 of the UN charter remains with a stricter interpretation of the article as well as overall expanding methods to allow nations to receive adequate third party assistance if necessary. These two goals will help the United Nations and international community maintain peace by preventing unlawful preemptive attacks, and allowing for an alternate more effective, and more peaceful option in place of violence.
Works Cited
Yang Xi, Mr. (Translation) at the Sixth Committee of the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Agenda Item 82 Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization. 2019.

United Nations Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization General Assembly Official Records Eightieth Session Supplement No. 33.
Sun, Yun. “The Purpose and Promise of China’s International Organization for Mediation.” Brookings, 6 June 2025, www.brookings.edu/articles/the-purpose-and-promise-of-chinas-international-organization-for-mediation/.

Hindsight, In. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Saudi Arabia
Delegate Name: Avery Water

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia strongly supports Article 51 as it would strengthen sovereignty and security. Saudi Arabia believes that clarifying Article 51 would not just allow each individual state to keep their national sovereignty, but to also keep the right to defend its territory, people, religious beliefs, and interests. Article 51 could allow for substantial protection within Saudi Arabia when factoring in possible threats from terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.
Within the committee, Saudi Arabia would be more than willing to work with fellow delegates to clarify within Article 51 that it should not only include state threats, but non-state threats, such as the said terrorist groups, and also to help defend the state with current international issues such as the conflict in Yemen and Iran.
Saudi Arabia would also have interest in clarifying the fact Saudi Arabia does fully support the right to self-defense, but should bring caution to the committee that some nations may misuse Article 51 for unauthorized aggression or violations of national sovereignty. Ultimately it is up to the UNSC to prevent the abuse of Article 51, but it must be brought up in committee.
Saudi Arabia would also like to emphasise the fact that along with Saudi Arabia, there are multiple middle-eastern countries within the GCC or Gulf Cooperation Council, that strengthens national sovereignty of all involved states and if Article 51 is not clarified that similar organizations to the GCC that experience abuse of Article 51 could be a danger to all involved states.
This delegation would also like to remind states that the respect for each other’s national sovereignty and security is due to the common need and want of international peace. Allowing the right for self-defense does not justify an unauthorized attack on an international state.
Saudi Arabia believes that if the committee is cooperative and understanding of common goals and interests, such as global peace and common rights to self-defense, then the clarification of Article 51 can involve many individual state interests, along with allowing for state representation.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will collaborate with this committee to equitably find clarification on the subject of Article 51. Saudi Arabia has firm interest in retaining national sovereignty and the right to self-defense and security and will work with other delegates to ensure this.
SCUNC Article 51 – GLICA.org
In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council, October 2025 Monthly Forecast : Security Council Report
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n25/053/37/pdf/n2505337.pdf
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4085043?ln=en&v=pdf
Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Japan
Delegate Name: Jada Wynn

2-6-2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: The State of Japan
Delegate name: Jada Wynn
Subject: Clarification of Article 51

The purpose of Article 51 is to give countries the ground basis of what using self defense and what the procedures should be, but there is a concern about some of the holes in the article that don’t give much clarification, which led to some potential loopholes. In a Security Council report regarding the increasing use of Article 51, it mentions how the debates regarding the interpretation of Article 51 have intensified over the last decade, but particularly the US and its allies have increasingly relied on the expansive “unwilling or unable” doctrine to justify military measures on the territory of other states, including counter-terrorism operations. These have led to attacks with a multitude of controversies, such as Israel’s September 9th strikes against Hamas, and the Iran nuclear facilities attacks made by the United States, both claiming that it was for self-defense, Israel claiming that it was in response to Hamas actions on October 9th and its ongoing attacks, while the United States claims that Iran was not negotiating in good faith, which resulted to the US striking down the potential threat before the enemy could do anything. With this issue of vagueness and the many interpretations for Article 51, countries will be able to find potential loopholes around Article 51 and use it in bad faith. Article 51 needs to add more clarification about what issues the right to self defense and erase the vagueness surrounding Article 51 in order to prevent countries using it in bad faith.
In terms of Japan using Article 51, the country has no plans of issuing the article at all, in fact, the country renounces any use of violence and starting wars. This statement can be seen in the Constitution of Japan, under Article 9, stating, “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes…” While the State of Japan renounces war, the country still understands the potential threats looming around the country. In an overview of Japan’s defense force, there are concerns about Japan’s neighboring countries’ military threat and what challenges Japan might face, such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and North Korea becoming an even more imminent threat than before with its military advancements. To conclude, Japan wants to keep peace and avoid violence, but the country will have no problem defending itself when such force is needed.
The best way to approach this issue regarding the vagueness of Article 51 is further specify what issues the right to self defense, such as self defense can only be issued if there is an active threat from an enemy country or said enemy country has already attacked the country first, and there was no previous foul play coming from the country issuing Article 51. This is to prevent instigators constantly pressuring enemy countries until the enemy attacks to issue Article 51 and countries using the right to defend themselves before the enemy country can even attack. This one specification can help close the many loopholes and vagueness in the article. While Article 51 has good intentions surrounding it, the vagueness in the article is causing many issues; there needs to be better clarification in Article 51.
In conclusion, the State of Japan is happy to work with anyone in order to help improve Article 51. Japan strongly encourages adding more specifications in the article when addressing self defense and the context of the situation to enforce Article 51. It is very important to avoid having countries using Article 51 in poor taste to target certain countries for selfish reasons instead of the main purpose, protecting the country and its people against a former threat. Japan will be strongly advocating for further specifications for Article 51 so that it can still be used; Article 51 has some holes, yes, but it is still a good general basis on policies and regulations on the topic of attacking another country and defending itself. These holes in Article 51 are detrimental to the article’s purpose and must be addressed immediately in the committee before further damage is committed.

Works Cited
Security Council Report. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, Sept 30, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php
Prime Minister’s Office of Japan. “Constitution of Japan.” Prime Minister’s Office of Japan, https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html
Ministry of Defense. “Overview of Japan’s National Defense -Japan Ministry of Defense.” Ministry of Defense, https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/d_policy/index.html
Ministry of Defense. “National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Defense Buildup Program(Outline).” Ministry of Defense, September 2024, https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/d_policy/pdf/overview-202409.pdf

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Algeria
Delegate Name: Gwyneth Henry

2/7/2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Algeria
Delegate Name: Gwyneth Henry
Subject: Clarification of Article 51

The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria has a strong commitment to help make stricter expectations for countries on this topic, while keeping national sovereignty at the forefront. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, which can be interpreted as extremely limited and conditional to situations rather than authorization for acts of retaliation. Clarification of this article should be effective in its implementation, with simple guidelines to adhere to. Algeria believes that there is a need to prevent misuse of this article through resolutions that are able to preserve global security and peace. We emphasize that changes planned for this article should be regarded in respect to how the Security Council can act in matters as serious as the one at hand.
Algeria has been faced with colonialism and foreign intervention for decades, which has shaped its foreign policies and its international security. Since Algeria gained independence, the country has consistently supported non-interference and respected state sovereignty. Algeria has upheld Article 51 of the charter with a strict interpretation, maintaining that self-defence is lawful only in response to armed attacks by other nations. Through being heavily engaged in the United Nations, as well as regional alliances such as the African Union, Algeria has opposed military actions as a response to hostilities. Algeria has instead advocated for peaceful resolutions and diplomatic mediation. Within these organizations, Algeria has also opposed actions that countries have taken that bypass Security Council authorizations.
Algeria is greatly concerned with the current frequency with which Article 51 has been invoked to justify military operations such as the U.S. airstrikes on Iran or the Russia-Ukraine war. Military operations such as these are the most concerning as they assert that countries do not need to follow the United Nations charter. Different interpretations of the “unable or unwilling” doctrine also have the risk of eroding international norms, as the use of it has also become more frequent and alarming. Algeria also notes that there are inconsistencies in reporting self-defence actions to the Security Council, with reports lacking evidence for justification. This reduces transparency and the ability of the Security Council to maintain peace.
Looking to the future, Algeria supports strengthening the implementation of Article 51 with clearer guidelines. Using measures such as standard reporting by states to the Security Council regarding actions taken is essential to keeping council authority. Another positive way to amend the article is by defining an armed attack, as different interpretations of self-defence have been used to enact Article 51. Algeria also maintains that Article 51 is a temporary measure that doesn’t override the Security Council’s authorities.
The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria emphasizes that Article 51 is to be inpproved in a manner that respects both the United Nations and those countries within it. Article 51 must be interpreted carefully within the limits that the United Nations sets for it. By upholding the charter, the international community can better maintain global peace and stability. Algeria is committed to working with other nations to improve the article and create a solution that all countries can compromise on.

Works cited
AHUJA, UDAYVIR. “Rewriting the Rules of War: How States Weaponised “Self-Defence.”” Orfonline.org, OBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ( ORF ), 13 Nov. 2025, www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/rewriting-the-rules-of-war-how-states-weaponised-self-defence.
Hindsight, In. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php.
United Nations. “Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications.” Un.org, United Nations, 1945, legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml.
https://www.facebook.com/DonaGraciaMendesNasiCenterforHumanRightsinMiddleEa/?modal=admin_todo_tour. “The Algerian Case and the New Parade of Sovereignties – Foreign Policy Blogs.” Foreign Policy Blogs, 13 Jan. 2026, foreignpolicyblogs.com/2026/01/13/the-algerian-case-and-the-new-parade-of-sovereignties/.
Charter’s, UN. “Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 8 Dec. 2025, www.culawreview.org/journal/applications-of-the-un-charters-article-51-the-use-of-self-defense-in-outer-space.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Sweden
Delegate Name: Hansen Zhang

Kingdom of Sweden
Special Committee
Hansen Zhang
Clarification of Article 51

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter plays an important role in balancing state sovereignty and global security, as the article provides states with the inherent right to self-defense against armed attacks on their sovereign territory or property. Sweden maintains that this article should not be used as justification to conduct any unlawful military attacks on other nations sovereign territory or property .Sweden firmly adheres to a rule-based international order in which self-defense must be proportional to the attacks and remain accountable to the international community.
Sweden does not support broad pre-emptive strikes in response to a perceived threat under Article 51, as the article requires a physical armed attack or a clear and imminent threat that is identifiable by the international community. The 2003 Iraq War conducted by the United States demonstrated how the expansive interpretation of self-defense under Article 51 can undermine the authority of international law, a position Sweden has consistently opposed.
Sweden supports strict and transparent reporting of the reason why a nation has invoked Article 51. A clear reporting should include the description of the attack, evidence for the necessity of self-defense, actions that are to be taken, their scale and proportionality, and the duration of the defensive measures. Sweden believes that these guidelines can help prevent nations from abusing Article 51 and ensure each nation is held accountable after the fact.
Sweden believes that the problem is within the loose interpretations of Article 51. Sweden suggests that in order to address this concern, the council should implement clear definitions of the Article and its uses, standard reporting templates, and an oversight body composed of rotating neutral states” to review claims of self-defense. Sweden would also like to stress the importance of preventive diplomacy to prevent the use of Article 51 in the first place.
Sweden as a nation believes that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter should not be a pretext to justify unlawful military activities in other nation’s soveregin land. Sweden also emphasizes that self-defense and the use of Article 51 should always be a last resort and must be lawful, proportional, and accountable.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Pakistan
Delegate Name: Caleb Stoner

DELEGATE: Caleb Stoner
COUNTRY: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan
COMMITTEE: SCUNC
ISSUE: Clarification of Article 51

The issue at hand is that Article 51 needs significant specifications. Pakistan believes in its current state Article 51 could be harmful to countries who are being attacked by significantly larger countries. Such as, the conflict between us and India. Pakistan has suffered much loss from their attacks and with the current phrasing of the article we may be subject to more loss at the hands of this country. Such as in the case of the Indus Water Treaty while the treaty was meant to resolve conflict it resulted in India revoking such things as India had more power and took advantage of our nations insecurities. This action caused our nation to be thrown further into water insecurity. However, Pakistan believes that many modifications may be made to this article that could provide protection to us in the case that neighboring countries use their status and power to take advantage of insecure nations. Pakistan states and have previously stated that we believe every nation has a right to self defense but there must be limits.
Pakistan has provided insight to the United Nations several times as to the harm of unrestricted warfare, noting that it should be used very carefully. The conflict between Pakistan and India is a clear sign that if given the chance India would use this article as a means of attack towards our nation. To that point a solution to this issue would be to put a prior authorization of these self defense acts. A nation would need to go through a thorough set of measures before being permitted to attack. Such as providing resources to nations who claim to need these measures before permitting such acts or in the case of our nation shutting down airways until conflict is resolved peacefully. However, The Indus water treaty has provided our nation with great resources and with India’s attempt to remove it, we also believe that nations would need to be restricted from attempting to cut off resources as a means of self defense.
In conclusion, Pakistan has many ideas to tackle this issue. Such as to instate a standard for what is able to be considered self defense The standard would include specifications and alternate options for those who do not have a conflict that fits the standard.. Pakistan has had its own laws in regards to national defense, so Pakistan believes it could aid in creating specifications to make this article be the most helpful to nations as it can be.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Uzbekistan
Delegate Name: Reese Shepard

Special Committee on the United Nations Charter (SCUNC)
Clarification of Article 51
Uzbekistan
Reese Shepard
Article 51 has a focus on global threats to countries and the means in which the UN and participating countries look to control dangerous situations. Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms that a country has the right to defend itself against other countries or groups if attacked until the UN Security Council steps in. The current problem that has arisen is the lack of clarity on the meaning and regulations of Article 51. Countries have been interpreting Article 51 differently and attacking first under the “unable or unwilling” test against terrorist groups or countries. This issue matters globally because it has created a legal loophole which justifies uses of force, increases global conflict, and allows abuse of self defense claims. Recently an instance with Russia when Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukraine showed how Article 51 can be broadly interpreted and used to justify force under the guise of self-defense. Article 51 needs adjustments so it can become more effective and clear so as to help put a stop to global conflicts.
Uzbekistan sees the value of Article 51 and has taken anti-terrorism actions in the hopes of limiting global conflict. The Uzbekistan government prioritizes security and stability. With Afghanistan being geographically close to Uzbekistan, in the past they have taken more humanitarian action in helping them become more stable but have also supported other countries who are combating terroism originating in Afghanistan with a more aggressive approach. In 2017 Uzbekistan updated their defense doctrine and shifted it towards having a more modernized military and focusing on security challenges both nationally and internationally. Uzbekistan’s updated defense doctrine was legally modeled after the policies of Article 51. In 2001 Uzbekistan became a founding member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) along with China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and other countries which have been working to combat terrorism and maintain security. The Uzbekistan President, Shavkat Mirziyoyev has said that he believes that countries just left alone will continue to cause global issues and that the UN should take flexible and constructive approaches to these issues and against these countries.
Uzbekistan supports strengthening regional cooperation and alliances rather than immediately jumping to military action and justifying it through Article 51. This would align with Uzbekistan’s goals for security and stability and help lessen problems in the region. This solution would work through the SCO and the UN monitoring threats and working through them collaboratively. Uzbekistan would also support the UN becoming more strict on their peacekeeping and reporting mechanisms as many countries take action under the guise of “self defense” and then poorly report it to the UN. The current reporting system is ineffective and allows countries to abuse their power under Article 51. For this to work the UN would have to enhance the legality and requirements of the reports of the use of Article 51. Uzbekistan would be interested in looking into having countries bring up the issue to the UN before taking military action and then giving a detailed report of what consequences their actions brought to the group they were attacking, as well as the communities and regions in the surrounding area. These solutions align with Uzbekistan’s goals and would help us be a proactive contributor to limiting global conflict.
Uzbekistan calls upon fellow members of the United Nations to help change Article 51 so that the regulations are more specific and help reduce the abuse of power leading to global conflict. Overall Uzbekistan would support further clarification and stricter regulations on Article 51. Uzbekistan looks to collaborate with other countries to create a more secure and stable world.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Belarus
Delegate Name: Charlisa Penzak

Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
Clarification of Article 51
Republic of Belarus
Charlisa Penzak
Groves High School

The Republic of Belarus recognizes the importance of Article 51’s self-defense provision in the UN Charter which enables countries to use force to defend their national security. However, the uncertainty arises in what constitutes “self-defense” that could trigger an Article 51 invocation. This issue is of particular concern to Belarus, particularly in the European context, as the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has significant implications for regional stability and for Belarus’s own security. Both Ukraine and Russia have cited Article 51 to justify their operations.

Belarus supports international sovereignty and generally believes that nations should exercise caution and restraint regarding potential military actions. However, Belarus stresses that the interpretation of Article 51 must remain consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, including respect for human rights, freedom, and self-determination. When there is violence and repression committed, member states have an obligation to uphold these values and defend against aggressors. For example, Ukraine has refused to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk (pro-Russia regions) for decades and suppressed its ethnic Russian population through military attacks on civilian spaces, discrimination, critical supply blockades, and human rights violations. As a result, Russia’s special military operation could be considered an act of defense for the Russian minority in Ukraine. Furthermore, expansions of NATO and efforts by the west to turn Ukraine into its proxy directly threaten Belarussian and Russian security. From this perspective, Russia’s actions are regarded as precautionary measures aimed at safeguarding regional security.

Though Belarus is especially concerned about the Article 51 pretext for the special military operation in Ukraine, these principles apply broadly in situations around the globe. Overall, the Republic of Belarus supports a broader interpretation of the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, one that reflects the nature of contemporary threats that may not fit traditional definitions of an “armed attack” but violate international law regardless. A broader interpretation may encompass cyber threats, hybrid warfare, and aggression from non-state actors and allow nations to take appropriate defensive measures. Belarus believes that self-defense should extend to entities whose sovereignty may not be universally recognized but whose security is directly threatened, such as the Luhansk and Donetsk regions that require military and humanitarian protection. Belarus further supports preventative measures in the face of aggression, as well as the protection of populations beyond a state’s own territorial borders. Belarus advocates for a lower threshold in defining what constitutes an “armed attack,” so nations can respond decisively to threats without delay. Furthermore, Belarus supports unilateral discretion in determining the necessary measures of self-defense, enabling prompt action to safeguard national interests and populations in accordance with national security.

Belarus is hopeful that this committee can work together to clarify Article 51 in a manner that upholds self-determination and protects vulnerable populations.

Works Cited:
https://www.mfa.gov.by/en/press/statements/d3e236137ef40de9.html
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-special-military-operation-claimed-right-self-defense/

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

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Somalia
Delegate Name: Nathan Schreibeis

Article 51 is a vital part of the United Nations’ charter, providing the ability to defend one’s own country and citizens from danger. It allows for a flexible response to attacks from other states and prohibits the United Nations from interfering with one country’s defense until reviewed by the Security Council. This way, the United Nations allows for adaptive responses of self-defense while still trying to promote peace. However, in recent events, Article 51 has been invoked over 78 times since 2021, typically with more invocations in the global north. One example is from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, invoking the Article on September 9th, 2025. Using Article 51, the Israeli Prime Minister ordered an airstrike against the Islamic Resistance Movement in Qatar, out of self-defense. Some have also used the “unwilling or unable doctrine,” where the state that strikes is doing so because the victim state does not have the ability to stop the threat itself. Many states are currently wondering what action should be taken to clarify Article 51 in a way that will further peace and prosperity among members of the United Nations, while still allowing for self-defense.

The Federal Republic of Somalia has never invoked Article 51 against any specific state or non-state group. However, Kenya invoked the article after the terrorist group of Al-Shabaab attacked citizens of the Republic of Kenya in 2012. Somalia does support strong self-defense, though, in Article 126 of the Somali Constitution, the armed forces of Somalia have the ability to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of the country of Somalia. The delegation of Somalia reflects this sentiment in the idea that Somalia should also have the right of self-defense on the international stage. The Federal Republic of Somalia also strongly holds the belief that Article 51 should be allowed against non-state actors. With Somalia being deeply affected by the armed attacks of non-state actors, specifically Al-Shabaab, the delegation of Somalia believes that states supporting the fight against non-state groups should be allowed to invoke Article 51 with the rationale of collective defense. In 2018, the United States of America helped the fight against Al-Shabaab with effective counteroffensives, one being in 2024, where 1,650 members of Al-Shabaab were killed, and 550 were wounded. The Federal Republic of Somalia believes that any state should be able to invoke Article 51 when countering non-state groups. With the rationale of Article 51 allowing for collective self-defense and effective measures, states should be allowed to enact Article 51. This way, the United Nations can foster peace among nations.

The Federal Republic of Somalia believes that the United Nations should allow for self-defense, but should clarify what self-defense is in the Article. With Somalia being a part of the African Union, the state also supports the idea of self-defense being a response to an “armed attack.”The delegation believes that this wording should be implemented in Article 51. However, Article 51 should still allow for collective defense if one nation has been affected by an armed attack and there is a necessity for collective defense. The delegation also believes that collective defense should replace the “unwilling or unable” doctrine. This would allow the United Nations to promote peace among its members, but with more specific constraints.

Works Cited
Center for Preventive Action. “Al-Shabab in Somalia.” Global Conflict Tracker, 30 June 2023, www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/al-shabab-somalia.
Deeks, Ashley. “Unwilling or Unable: Toward a Normative Framework For… | University of Virginia School of Law.” Www.law.virginia.edu, 12 May 2020, www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/ashley-s-deeks/866576.
Hathaway, Oona A., and Luke Hartig. “Still at War: The United States in Somalia.” Just Security, 31 Mar. 2022, www.justsecurity.org/80921/still-at-war-the-united-states-in-somalia/.
Security Council, United Nations. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 30 Sept. 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php.
“Somalia 2012 Constitution – Constitute.” Www.constituteproject.org, 2012, www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Somalia_2012.
United Nations. “United Nations Charter.” United Nations, 1945, www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
United, Nations. United Nations Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization General Assembly Official Records Eightieth Session Supplement No. 33. 27 Feb. 2025.
Wyse, Christian. “The African Union’s Right of Humanitarian Intervention as Collective Self-Defense | Chicago Journal of International Law.” Cjil.uchicago.edu, cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/african-unions-right-humanitarian-intervention-collective-self-defense.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Ukraine
Delegate Name: Shivani Salwi

As a founding member of the UN, the delegation of Ukraine remains committed to the principles of the UN Charter: to prevent wars and promote international peace. Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the right of an individual’s self defense in response to an armed attack against a member State. Clarification of Article 51 has become increasingly important due to multiple threats such as state aggression and anticipatory self defense. Ukraine’s ongoing exposure with Russia’s ongoing unprovoked invasion displays the need to ensure that Article 51 serves as a protection for victims of aggression rather than a pretext.

The United Nations has taken efforts to address Article 51 but progress is still limited. States have also invoked Article 51 increasingly. In recent sessions, proposals such as those from Mexico and Brazil have sought to create forums for exchanging views on Article 51, with an increased focus on procedural transparency. The Council routinely receives notifications related to Article 51, but has given few resolutions, causing unchecked precedents to form. There is an absence of standardized requirements, as evidenced by the varied reporting formats.

The delegation of Ukraine asserts its right to self defense under Article 51 in response to Russia’s ongoing aggression since 2022. The defensive measures Ukraine has taken, including strikes on military targets to protect civilians comply with international law. Ukraine opposes broad pre-emptive strikes if a clear imminent threat is absent, insisting that self defense must be reactive to actual aggression. Ukraine openly welcomes collective self defense support from partners.

To strengthen Article 51’s implementation, Ukraine proposes that the Committee recommends clear guidelines that affirm that self defense is only permissible for an actual armed attack, while explicitly excluding pre-emptive actions that lack evidence. Reports to the Security Council should mandate standard content, which include details about the armed attack nature, timing as well as evidence to support the validity of the attack. The Committee should also initiate a review of post-2021 invocations in order to incorporate diverse perspectives to prevent unfair precedents that only support powerful states. Ukraine strongly believes that these steps would increase transparency, minimize abuse and overall boost commitment to collective security and peaceful settlement.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Gabon
Delegate Name: Madelyn Tolsma

Article 51 is a crucial element to the UN charter affirming nations right to self defense. However because of its incredibly vague nature there are no clear guidelines in regards to what qualifies actions of self defense as justified under UN charter. It also fails to clarify the definition for an armed attack. As a result a myriad of opportunities for nations to misuse the rights granted by Article 51 present themselves.
A key point of contention across debates over these guidelines is whether or not actions against terrorist organizations meet the qualification for just use of Article 51. Many member states argue that if a country is unwilling or unable to prevent or otherwise supporting terrorist operations then they ought to be granted the right of self defense against non-state actors. Others have raised massive concerns over the notion, arguing actions of international self defense against non-state actors are only justified under the guidelines the use of force is executed in another states territory and with said states consent. Tensions around the subject are notably high recently due to conflicts such as Israel putting force onto Qatar as a result of the actions Hamas took in the country. Another notable point of debate is weather or not self defense is valid under specific cases where attack is deemed imminent, but not yet carried out. Its a fairly new concept mostly supported by the USA and its allies, and has been met with major critique from other members. Particularly, China blatantly stated such actions would be using force arbitrarily in the name of self defense. Finally many member states have expressed discontent over the contents of reports made to the Security Council under article 51. there is little consistency in the way the Council responds to Article 51 reports. They do not automatically trigger a Council meeting, and while the issues raised in the reports are usually discussed informally by Council members’ legal advisers, there is no guarantee that the discussion will progress beyond that stage. If the wider issue that the report is related to is sufficiently high profile, then aspects of the report may be discussed during a Council meeting, but when this happens, consideration of Article 51 is often subsumed by a broader political discussion, and the report may not be addressed directly. Member states have complained that these inconsistencies have made it difficult to identify and access Article 51 reports, with some calling for a clearer, timely system for distributing them to states outside the Council. Mexico, which has been particularly active in relation to this issue, has gone further and suggested that the lack of clarity surrounding Article 51 reports and the Council’s response to them has inhibited member states’ ability to adequately react when other states claim to be acting in self-defence.
The Republic of Gabon Is allied with the A.U in regards to what is justified as self defense, critiques the notion that any first use of force does not qualify under the label of self defense, affirms the right to collective force in regards, actions against humanity, armed attacks, and supports member states right to defend against non state actor. Committed to holding
“First, self-defense interventions are not legally gray actions under risk. Their legality is determined regardless of whether the UNSC eventually approves the intervention. Indeed, the benefit of self-defense is that its legality is determined by objective criteria independent of UNSC politics.
Second, self-defense interventions bridge the gap between the legal and operational systems. Interventions undertaken in self-defense reflect an operational reality—the inefficacy of the UNSC. However, they also fit within the legal system by not usurping the body’s powers. The legal system is preserved, even while the operational system remains flexible.”
Works Cited:
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php
file:///C:/Users/dartf/Downloads/A_AC.182_L.159-EN.pdf
https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/african-unions-right-humanitarian-intervention-collective-self-defense
https://www.justsecurity.org/121542/increasing-use-article-51-unsc/

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Denmark
Delegate Name: KenZie Low

Article 51 is an exception to the prohibition of the use of force defined by Article 2 by defining that any State that is a target of an armed attack has the right to self-defense or collective defence, as long as this use of force is immediately reported and does not interfere with the powers of the UNSC. The ambiguity regarding an armed attack, reports to the Security Council, and infringements of sovereignty have caused controversial uses of force throughout international history. Denmark is worried about the ambiguity that exists when defining an armed attack; however, the nation is an adamant believer in collective self-defense while maintaining sovereignty, and typically adheres to international law with respect to R2P.

Denmark is an avid believer in collective self-defense as a founding member of NATO and a presiding country of the EU. The nation abides by Article 5 and Article 42(7) of NATO and the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), respectively. These articles state that members of the respective organizations are obliged to provide aid and assistance to target member states of armed attacks with all the power possible in adherence to Article 51. However, Denmark understands that collective self-defense brings issues of state sovereignty. After witnessing cases of physical coercion, such as Nicaragua v United States (ICJ), Denmark condemns collective self-defense that contradicts the political and territorial independence of the target state. Instead, Denmark has urged the responsive use of force to be ‘necessary and proportionate.’ For example, Denmark has exercised collective self-defense under the consent of Iraq and Syria against ISIL. This also supports Denmark’s belief that non-state actors are just as capable of an armed attack as a State actor because the ISIL posed an international threat, stated in Article 222 of the TFEU. Along with acknowledging non-state actors, Denmark noted in a 2023 position paper that armed attacks can extend to cyberspace if cyberattacks cause physical and humanitarian damage or a loss of functioning in the government. Denmark typically does not intervene except when there is a call to R2P (Responsibility to Protect), the 2005 UN Doctrine that calls upon the international community to prevent serious international crimes. The nation has intervened in collective self-defense in the NATO inception of Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003 to continue the agenda of R2P. In every instance Denmark has engaged in collective self-defense, the nation has been committed to providing formal letters as swiftly as possible to the UNSC to ensure credibility in self-defense measures. Besides collective self-defense, Denmark is currently wary about the territorial aggressions that the United States is placing within its own territory, Greenland. The nation reported that Denmark and the EU have every right to have a proactive approach in defending a potential armed attack against Greenland, as stated in the 1952 Danish Royal Decree.

Denmark calls for a broader, proactive interpretation of Article 51 in terms of self-defense and an armed attack to protect its own and allied nations’ political and territorial integrity. Nonetheless, the nation believes that Article 51 should address the ‘necessary and proportionate aspect’ of the use of self-defense. Denmark fully advocates for collective self-defense under NATO and the EU, but urges these to respect the target state’s sovereignty and report immediately and in detail as to why the self-defense was warranted to the UNSC. Denmark understands that immediate reporting is not always feasible, so it is open to deciding a feasible timeframe with other nations. Denmark also calls for the extension of Article 51 to non-state actors, cybersecurity, and increased flexibility for the Kingdom to define Overseas Countries and Territories. Overall, Denmark looks forward to collaborating with other nations to ensure that the right to self-defense is respected, but is no longer enacted incorrectly or immorally.

Works Cited
AGREEMENT on SECURITY COOPERATION and LONG-TERM SUPPORT between DENMARK and UKRAINE.
Bangert, Lars, et al. To Be, or Not to Be Smart Defence, Sovereignty and Danish Defence Policy. 2012.
Brocza, Stefan. “The EU Mutual Defense Clause and Greenland: What Happens If Denmark Asks for Help according to Article 42 (7) TEU?” Arcticyearbook.com, 2025, arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2025/2025-briefing-notes/576-the-eu-mutual-defense-clause-and-greenland-what-happens-if-denmark-asks-for-help-according-to-article-42-7-teu. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026.
Charter’s, UN. “Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 8 Dec. 2025, www.culawreview.org/journal/applications-of-the-un-charters-article-51-the-use-of-self-defense-in-outer-space.
“Denmark on Behalf of 26 EU-Members: Statement on Russia’s War of Aggression against Ukraine.” Norgesportalen, 6 Nov. 2025, www.norway.no/en/missions/osce/norway-and-the-osce/statements/statements-with-norwegian-alignment-2025/denmark-on/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026.
“Denmark’s Security Starts in the Baltic States.” National Defense University Press, ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3323969/denmarks-security-starts-in-the-baltic-states/.
“Grabbing Greenland: Impact on NATO and the EU – International Centre for Defence and Security.” International Centre for Defence and Security, 19 Jan. 2026, icds.ee/en/grabbing-greenland-impact-on-nato-and-the-eu/.
“Historical and Legal Context | Uncharted and Uncomfortable in European Defence.” Clingendael.org, 2022, www.clingendael.org/pub/2022/uncharted-and-uncomfortable/2-historical-and-legal-context/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026.
Kjelgaard, Jeppe Mejer, and Ulf Melgaard. “Denmark’s Position Paper on the Application of International Law in Cyberspace: Introduction.” Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. -1, no. aop, 4 July 2023, pp. 1–10, brill.com/view/journals/nord/aop/article-10.1163-15718107-20230001/article-10.1163-15718107-20230001.xml, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-20230001.
Ministry of Defence. “The Danish Efforts to Defeat ISIS.” Ministry of Defence, 2014, www.fmn.dk/en/topics/operations/ongoing-operations/isil/.
“Self-Defence.” International Cyber Law: Interactive Toolkit, 20 Jan. 2023, cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Self-defence.
Turse, Nick. “Danish Forces Are Mandated to Fire Back If U.S. Attacks Greenland.” The Intercept, 14 Jan. 2026, theintercept.com/2026/01/14/trump-greenland-denmark-nato/.
United Nations Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization General Assembly Official Records Eightieth Session Supplement No. 33.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Republic of Korea
Delegate Name: Esther Kim

Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves nations’ inherent right of self-defense within the framework of the prohibition on the use of force. However, due to a lack of regulatory statements, this Article creates room for misuse, which may lead to a disruption of international security. In the absence of detailed provision, the UN relies on customary international law, which states that a response must be necessary and proportionate, without any method to determine these traits. In addition to this, when submitting Article 51 reports, nations are currently having to rely on international state practice, creating inconsistencies in the reports that may be subject to different interpretations. To further the issue, such reports are not regularly acted upon by the Security Council and experience problems with transparency, leading many to doubt the necessity of this report.
First, to establish the scope of the article, South Korea strongly supports the inclusion of anticipatory defense within the definition of self-defense. South Korea itself practices such diligence when handling issues of nuclear threat from the DPRK. In light of the inconsistency regarding Article 51 reports, South Korea encourages all nations to comply with the relevant international regulations. It firmly believes that such reports are necessary in preserving transparency and accountability. The absence of such reports may hinder the peaceful resolution of international disputes.
Further, there are currently debates surrounding the “unwilling or unable” doctrine which is frequently used in tandem with Article 51 to justify the use of force against non-state actors. South Korea recognizes that this doctrine may constitute an infringement of national sovereignty, and advises caution when utilizing it. However, South Korea acknowledges that with the proper regulations, this doctrine can further mitigate international conflicts.
In response to such problems, South Korea seeks to establish clearer definitions and reporting standards under Article 51.
Despite being in support of anticipatory self-defense, South Korea acknowledges that appropriate regulations should be put in place to prevent the abuse of this article. As such, an advisory panel of legal experts in international humanitarian law should be created as a subsidiary body of the Security Council to establish a specific measure to review each incident and determine the proportionality of the response. When the panel determines that an action was disproportionate, it should provide recommendations for possible measures that the SC could take in response.
Article 51 should only be invoked under direct or anticipatory self-defense, including under the “unwilling or unable” doctrine. Under this doctrine, acts of force must adhere to customary laws of necessity and proportionality and should end when the host state is willing or able to address the cause of unrest. The acting state should always seek alternative measures before invoking Article 51, including demanding action from the unwilling host state or attempting to assist the unable host state. When the acting state invokes Article 51 under the “unable” condition, it may incur an obligation to provide reparations should the action later be deemed inconsistent with necessity and proportionality.
Article 51 reports to the SC should be mandatory when a nation decides to take action within the scope of self-defense. Failing to report within 1 month may be weighed against the good faith of the state. By detailing the actions of the aggressor, nations should attempt to justify the necessity and proportionality of the measures taken in self-defense. To review the factual and legal claims made in such reports, the aforementioned advisory panel should be consulted.
South Korea acknowledges that due to a lack of specific requirements in the UN Charter, Article 51 has often been interpreted beyond its legal scope, causing international unrest. To mitigate future abuses of this article, South Korea calls upon member states to clarify and strengthen Article 51 in accordance with customary international laws.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Peru
Delegate Name: Sarah Abraham

Sarah Abraham
Peru
Clarification on Article 51

The Creation Of Article 51 For the United Nations Charter was Established as a right to protect one’s country if it was attacked by another to keep citizens out of danger and not be seen as a vulnerable state. If any state deliberately causes an armed attack against a member of the United Nations, they will have the right to secure their state and other members of the United Nations can come to the country’s aid until the United Nations calls for peace during the conflict. For the past few years, Article 51 has been abused from multiple states calling for strikes on countries and causing increases in conflict. A recent example of these events occurring was on September 9th 2025 when Israel’s forces planned and acted for an airstrike on Qatar that targeted Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) causing innocent lives to be at risk and several citizens left dead or injured from the attack. This was said to be a defense on behalf of Israel so consequences could not be given for them , this should present how pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack conflicts with Article 51’s policies because it was a defense from an assumed attack, but since the pre-emptive strike was not confirmed by the Security Council , situations like this should not be excused as a defense but seen as an attack.
Peru has very little input on Article 51 , from the Constitution Of 1993 , the Delegation Of Peru states that the Constitution overrules any laws that conflict with the Constitution and all latest laws should be published and made public for citizens to be aware of what regulations they are following. The delegation of Peru will put citizens of the country first before anything which is why Article 51 can bring up issues for the United Nations because of attacks negatively impacting all countries citizens. For Article 51 to improve , it should go into more depth on what is acceptable and what is not because of countries using its vagueness to justify attacks as defense. Article 51 should specify what counts as a legitimized armed attack and what should count as an act of self defense, if the article could specify more clearly it could improve how to determine what conflicts should be acceptable. An example of this is in Nicaragua v. the United States and Oil Platforms when the US claimed Nicaragua was planning an attack and it justified their actions which was later determined that the US had violated Article 51 and signifies how there needs to be limits addressed for armed attacks so that misunderstandings are less common.
The Delegation Of Peru believes that Article 51 should clarify how defense should take place to decrease mishaps from happening as commonly as it does right now which will benefit our people and the other delegates citizens from being on the risk of harm from countries using pre-emptive strikes which leads to many casualties and as countries it should be the top priority to keep our civilians safe more than anything. Any decision to use force on another country should also be approved by the Security Council to make sure the act was not violating what Article 51 stands for , this will help our countries stay out of conflict and move towards peace.

Works Cited
Annex — HLS PILAC Catalogue of Apparent “Article 51 Communications” — HLS PILAC. “HLS PILAC.” HLS PILAC , 16 July 2019, pilac.law.harvard.edu/quantum-of-silence-paper-and-annex/annex-hls-pilac-catalogue-of-apparent-article-51-communications. Accessed 12 Feb. 2026.
Hindsight, In. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php.
Charter’s, UN. “Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 8 Dec. 2025, www.culawreview.org/journal/applications-of-the-un-charters-article-51-the-use-of-self-defense-in-outer-space.
‌“Peru 1993 (Rev. 2021) Constitution – Constitute.” Www.constituteproject.org, www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peru_2021.
‌

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: South Africa
Delegate Name: Margrit Rayes

SCUNC

1. Article 51

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is an extremely vital, yet vague provision. As per the article, all members of the UN have an inherent right to self defense in the face of danger. As this committee is aware, Article 51 has been used 80 times since 2021, indicating an acute increase in comparison to previous years. This article is needed as it serves to protect countries under the United Nations, and strives to maintain peace between all nations. However, due to a lack of clear and concise explanation, Article 51 had been abused in ways that cost civilian lives.

An example of the use, or misuse, of Article 51 is displayed through the actions of Israel on June 13th of last year regarding Iran. On June 13th of 2025, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion”, an attempt to “eliminate the threat” of Iran. 4 days after the attack, a letter was sent to the President of the Security Council by an Israeli foreign minister, whilst not directly stating Article 51, still stating that these attacks were to defend the “security and existence of Israel”. No matter the intent, upwards 220 innocent Iranian citizens were killed amongst these attacks. Are innocent people the cost of national security, and if they are, what does that say about international law and incompetence? As a nation, South Africa stands against Israel’s use of Article 51 against Iran and against the Palestinian people as a whole, as civilian deaths outweigh Israel’s national threat.

Another example of the use of Article 51 is seen on June 22nd of 2025, where the United States struck Iranian nuclear factories, and in a later report excused their actions through Article 51. As the US claimed in the report, they had taken all “necessary measures” to “defend” Israel, claiming that “all peaceful measures were exhausted” and therefore insinuating that Iran was not cooperative – that the only option left was to strike, and that the United States was only acting in accordance with international law. However it may seem, this action only worsened the ongoing Iran-Israel tensions, and made it even harder to maintain peace. Although Hassan Abedini, an Iranian political director, assures that this operation did not harm Iran as severely as claimed since weapons were evacuated before the attack, this event still increased tensions between nations and did not provide security to the nation of Israel as it originally set out to do.

On behalf of the delegation of South Africa, preemptive strikes should not be considered viable under Article 51, as they do far more harm than good by creating hostile tensions for nations to be in with no original reason for self defense. If an attack is presumed by a nation, that nation must gain permission of the UN, to ensure that an attack is absolutely necessary, and that as little tensions rise as possible. To ensure this, a feature could be added to Article 51 that has to do with the concept of Article 39. Article 39 states that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to decide what measures need to be taken in the event of a possible attack, NOT the responsibility of the nation under possible attack. If this was implemented, ARticle 51 would be far more specified and would therefore result in less civilian deaths and continue to maintain international peace.

Works Cited:

Mackintosh, Thomas. Yousif, Nadine. “What we know about US strikes on three Iranian nuclear strikes” BBC News, 2025

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o

Lam, Lena. Williams, Nathan. Lukiv, Jaroslav. Santos, Sofia. “Israel-Iran: How did the latest conflicts start and where could it lead?” BBC News, 2025

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj9vj8glg2o

Karnavas, Micheal. “SOUTH AFRICA’S ICJ APPLICATION: A convincing genocide claim or a compelling off-ramp for Israel (and cautionary refrain for the US)” Blog, 2025

SOUTH AFRICA’S ICJ APPLICATION: A convincing genocide claim or a compelling off-ramp for Israel (and cautionary refrain for the US)

Shany, Yuval. Cohen, Amichai. “South Africa vs. Israel at the International Court of Justice: A Battle Over Issue-Framing and the Request to Suspend the War” Just Security, 2024

South Africa vs. Israel at the International Court of Justice: A Battle Over Issue-Framing and the Request to Suspend the War

Official sites:

Security Council Report of the United Nations, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php

Media report of the Islamic Republic of Iran, https://southafrica.mfa.gov.ir/en/newsview/768419/South-African-Foreign-Ministry-Media-Statement-Condemning-Zionist-regimes%E2%80%99-Attack-on-Iran

United Nations Charter, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text#:~:text=Article%2039,restore%20international%20peace%20and%20security.

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: France
Delegate Name: Aicha Jaafar

Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, countries within the UN are able to, in theory, practice their right to protect their land and citizens if a conflict or threat arises. If a country or state-actor is attacked, they are permitted to defend themselves. This article is extremely valuable; it allows states to ensure the stability of their nation and to assist in protecting others. For example, Article 51 saw an immense amount of attention after the 2022 attacks on Ukraine. Not only does it allow Ukraine to implement self-defensive measures, but it also authorizes outside countries to provide collective support. However, this conflict also highlights the controversy surrounding the article, as Russia has sent a letter to the UN Security Council justifying the attack under Article 51. The UN has seen this practice utilized consistently in recent world events – including, but not limited to, Israel’s strikes on Hamas, the United States attacks of Iranian nuclear facilities, and Israel’s related military action in Iran. Whether these actions are truly supported by the UN Charter is yet to be clarified, but the UN is aware that the increase in its usage has caused disarray and controversy. In February 2025, Mexico noted that, since 2021, the article has been invoked for at least 78 instances, a notable increase since the previous years . Due to the fact that this number will likely only increase, it is imperative that the UN works to fully interpret and address all aspects of Article 51 to minimize corruption and ensure international stability.
France has had little usage of the article since 2015, when it faced an internal attack on November 13 by the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). After the tragedy, President François Hollande called upon members of the European Union to follow Article 42(7) of the European Union’s Treaty, asking for mutual aid. From this, he received unanimous support, allowing for the minimization of any damage caused by the attack. Article 42(7), known as the ‘mutual assistance clause’, falls under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and because of its implementation, countries in the EU (European Union) are able to provide each other with collective support. France has additionally utilized Article 51 to provide its support towards Ukraine in the ongoing conflict, backing its right for self-defense and protection and providing any aid possible.
On behalf of the Delegation of France, it is vital that Article 51 be clarified, most importantly to reduce civilian casualties. While it is true that countries must be allowed to prevent damage they may see, many of these actions have resulted in humanitarian concerns. This delegation believes that most of this stems from the current allowance of pre-emptive strikes that are not overseen or confirmed by the Security Council. Preventing damage to one’s nation is important, but taking these actions without prior conformation has only caused more international issues and concerns. Thus, we must remove or alter the permittance of preemptive attacks unless permission is granted. Alongside this, it would be extremely beneficial to implement an aspect of Article 51 similar to that of Article 42(7) of the EU Treaty for the means of humanitarian assistance. If we are to truly represent a united body that condemns civilian harm, adding a clause that, when called upon, guarantees citizen aid from financially stable countries, it vital. Additionally, we must consider how any and all reports made to the Security Council are carried out. If we are to minimize conflict efficiently and effectively, implementing these measures are absolutely necessary to ensure stability.

Works Cited

February 2026 monthly forecast : Security council report. February 2026 Monthly Forecast : Security Council Report. (n.d.). https://www.securitycouncilreport.org

France supports Ukraine in exercising its right to self-defense. France ONU. (n.d.). https://onu.delegfrance.org/nouvelle-traduction-france-supports-ukraine-in-exercising-it- right-to-self#:~:text=Since %20the%20outbreak%20of%20this,in%20terms%20of%20food%20security

Rehrl, J. (n.d). Invoking the EU’s Mutual Assistance Clause. what it says, what it means. – Egmont Institute. Invoking the EU’s Mutual Assistance Clause. What it says, what it means. – Egmont Institute. https://www.egmontinstitute.be/invoking-the-eus-mutual-assistance- clause-what-it-says-what-it- means/#:~:text=Mutual%20Assistance%20Clause.-,What%20it%20says%2C%20what% 20it%20means.,the%20majority%2C%20including%20the%20politicians

United Nations. (n.d.). Defending military aid to Ukraine, Western countries in Security Council reject Russian Federation’s claim such support is turning Kyiv into terrorist state | UN meetings coverage and press releases. United Nations. https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15659.doc.htm

Topic: 2026 – Clarification of Article 51
Country: Iran
Delegate Name: Ella Hood

Article 51 of the UN serves heavy importance to the sovereignty of nations across the globe because of how it overviews the need for self-defense. The article highlights the legal exception to use personal country resources to defend against an armed attack against you. Under article 51, measures taken in self-defense must be reported to the security council (A Historical). This policy ensures an organized system and that all acts of retaliation are accounted for. For Iran, article 51 and its wishes are deeply apricated because they use it to defend their military actions. It justifies their behavior and gives them a way out of punishment by providing loopholes in the “consequences” (Irans). This aspect of reporting back to the security council also helps avoid further and deeper conflict. An important consideration to understanding article 51 is that you are only granted the ability to defend yourself until the security council decides to step in and restore peace. The components of article 51 are very significant to the way a nation operates because it keeps a country from putting themselves at higher risks and generally under control.
One of the main ways a nation can take advantage of the desires included in article 51 is to prepare a form of self defense before the attack even occurs. This type of action is unacceptable under the stricter side of the article. Article 51 specifically says, “If an attack occurs”, meaning that nothing should be pre ready unless the nation is attacked first (Chapter). Any prior strikes are considered illegal. In opposition to this, the more considerate side of this idea is that if an attack is expected to be so serious that you are left with no options but to prepare an attack in advance, it is acceptable. Even though this type of action would go against article 51, it is typically passed as legal. This aspect is something that is not as supported in Iran. In prior years, Iran agreed with the rule of no prior attacks, but in 2025-2026 they have not been showing that in their practices. Regarding strikes against Iran, the nation has shifted their thoughts because they believe it is only safe to be prepared for an attack (Is Iran). Another concern that the majority have on article 51 is the reporting aspect of the requirements. The reports to the security council must be immediate and detailed regarding the situation at hand. They must include context such as the lengths of self-defense as well as justify it, provide evidence, and explain why the action was carried out. This ensures safety among all nations involved and eliminates further chaos (Conduct).
The UN can better ensure that article 51 is followed more accurately by Iran and other nations across the globe by requiring stricter rules and requirements to be followed. First, typically the report papers lack thought and are rushed or delayed. This turns into a major problem because the security council is not able to thoughtfully craft a plan to restore peace without detailed information on the situation. This solution will not only be helpful to the security council, but it will also be a long-term benefit. A second solution which stems from the security council could be to develop a better system to review these reports. Some reports can get easily lost or unnoticed and this can be very problematic, so having a way to carefully evaluate the responses will be beneficial. Lastly and most simply, being more strict on the term “attack.” Although this seems general, more wisely defining attack to nations can weed out unimportant or even false reports.

Position papers for SIMUN 2026 will appear above this line, with the newest being at the top.