You’ve probably heard that campaigning is in full swing to elect the next UN Secretary-General by the end of 2026 (full process explained here).

Four candidates are in the running: Michelle Bachelet (former Chilean president), Rafael Grossi (head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rican economist), and Macky Sall (former Senegalese president).

Subscribe now

Media coverage is focusing on geopolitics, regional rotation and debates on electing a female SG for the first time (all important!).

But here’s what won’t make headlines: whether the next Secretary-General (SG) will actually strengthen international law… or just keep tweeting about it.

(Yes, I’m calling it ‘tweeting’. Let me have this.)

Here are four ways a bold SG could make a difference.

Share

1. SG can tell the UN Security Council: “Hey, you need to look at this.”

Article 99 of the UN Charter lets the SG bring issues to the Security Council’s attention, basically saying ‘this is a threat to peace, you need to act’.

It’s seen as confrontational (like the SG saying “I think this is urgent even if you don’t” or “you’re not doing your job properly”) and risky (overstepping into ‘political’ territory, might be ignored, and might irritate the body controlling the SG’s reappointment!).

So it’s only been used a handful of times in 80+ years…

A bold SG could put climate change, pandemics, or AI governance on the Council’s agenda, which could lead to binding resolutions. A timid one won’t.

2. The SG can waive immunity

UN staff can’t be arrested or prosecuted in the countries where they’re working, for anything they claim was part of their job.

The problem? Crimes like sexual abuse are not a part of their job.

But the UN must decide case-by-case whether to waive immunity… and it rarely does.

So often, accountability is limited.

The SG has the power to waive the immunity for civilian UN staff accused of serious crimes (not military peacekeepers).

A bold SG might do so.

Subscribe now

3. The SG can appoint Special Envoys

The SG can pick and create Special Envoys : high-level diplomats sent to tackle specific problems (e.g., HIV/AIDS, indigenous people, youth) or focus on specific countries/regions (e.g., Syria, Sudan, Haiti) on the SG’s behalf.

So… what about a Special Envoy of International Law?

I’m serious.

Given the state of the world, maybe we need someone who pushes compliance with International Court of Justice judgments, discourages treaty withdrawals, and nudges states to join agreements gathering dust…

Someone who can knock on doors and say “remember those rules you signed up for?”.

4. The SG can say ‘no’ to powerful countries

Article 100 of the UN Charter protects the SG’s independence: governments aren’t supposed to tell them how to do their job.

This is permission to be bold.

A bold SG uses the powers above despite any pressure or backlash from any government, because Article 100 says they answer only to the UN Charter, not to any government.

Conclusion

Let’s be realistic: the P5 countries (USA, UK, France, China, Russia) largely control the SG’s appointment and reappointment.

An SG who’s a little too bold probably won’t last.

But one who’s too timid won’t matter either… especially now, when the UN is struggling financially, being sidelined diplomatically, and failing to get states to take international law seriously.

We need a SG who understands the risk and takes it anyway. Because international law won’t magically strengthen itself: it needs someone willing to fight for it.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The UN Just Passed a Slave Trade Resolution: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Has the U.S. really “Withdrawn” from 66 International Organisations? A 2-Minute International Law Explainer

Share

Last week, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution about the 400-year-long transatlantic slave trade.

The resolution basically builds a case for reparations based on historical and legal reasons, but stops short of telling certain states to pay up or how – instead encouraging dialogue about it.

123 states voted in favour, 3 against (the U.S., Israel and Argentina) and 52 abstained (see which here).

Subscribe now

3 THINGS THE RESOLUTION SAYS TO BUILD A CASE FOR REPARATIONS

1. Reparations have historical and legal basis

It says reparations have been provided in other historical contexts. (Hint: Why not this one?)

It lists historical examples where slavery was codified into law to show that it was a state-organized and legally codified system.

It says under international law, reparations are owed following an internationally wrongful act (true).

2. Slavery broke the highest laws of humanity (jus cogens)

The resolution says that slavery wasn’t just wrong, but it broke the highest laws humanity has (called jus cogens norms).

These aren’t rules countries can opt out of, and no amount of time or political deal-making can wipe the slate clean.

The obligation to make it right is still on the table… and it belongs to everyone, not just those directly involved or affected.

Share

3. Slavery is the “gravest crime of humanity”

Calling slavery the “gravest crime against humanity” is a bold move; international law usually avoids ranking atrocities against each other.

This is a key reason European countries weren’t happy about the resolution and abstained.

But the resolution makes the case that slavery was uniquely devastating: its sheer scale, how long it lasted, and the fact that its effects are still reshaping lives today set it apart.

The real goal is political: the worse the crime, the stronger the case for real reparations, not just a symbolic ‘sorry’.

Subscribe now

REMAINING CONTROVERSIES

4. Why didn’t the resolution go further and order reparations?

Making a case and encouraging dialogue is the maximum that could be done given the political sensitivities of the topic.

5. Why 52 abstentions?

Mostly European states were unhappy about slavery being ranked above other atrocities, but also uneasy about a deeper legal problem:

The rules the resolution invokes (jus cogens, crimes against humanity) didn’t exist when slavery was happening. The EU argument: You can’t really break a law before it’s written.

So the resolution is essentially asking countries to pay up today for something that wasn’t technically illegal at the time… which is a genuinely contested question in international law, and one the resolution sidesteps rather than answers.

What do you think about this argument? Let me know in the comments!

Leave a comment

WHAT IMPACT?

6. Does the resolution actually bind anyone?

No.

UN General Assembly resolutions aren’t legally binding. They’re recommendations.

7. So what impact does it have?

Three things.

First, it shapes what countries believe the law requires. In international law, when enough states believe something is legally obligatory and act accordingly, it can harden into binding custom over time. This resolution pushes that process forward.

Second, it raises the political cost of saying no: any state now entering reparations talks does so against a UN-endorsed baseline, which strengthens the hand of countries making claims.

Third, it gives bodies like the African Union and Caribbean Community (who backed the resolution) an official stamp of legitimacy. They can negotiate reparations collectively as a bloc, directly with European states, rather than each country having to make its own individual claim and getting bogged down in legal technicalities.

8. What happens next?

Nobody is rushing to court! The legal questions are just too messy. Who pays what? How do you calculate it? Can you even apply today’s laws to things that weren’t illegal at the time? What about African states that were themselves involved in the slave trade? What about countries that no longer exist? Which court could take on such a case anyway? These are genuinely hard problems with no clear-cut answer.

What’s more likely is movement on returning stolen cultural artefacts like art, manuscripts, historical objects. The resolution explicitly calls for this and it’s happened recently (e.g., the Benin bronzes, France returning artefacts to Mali). Expect this to be where the real action is in the near term.

Leave a comment

If you found this interesting, share it with someone who might find it interesting too!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• Has the U.S. really “Withdrawn” from 66 International Organisations? A 2-Minute International Law Explainer

• Four Ways the Next UN Secretary-General Could Actually Strengthen International Law (in 2 minutes)

Share

Headlines (and even the White House!) say the U.S. has ‘withdrawn’ from 66 international organisations, including 31 ‘UN organisations’.

But that’s not quite right.

For those 31, the U.S. has only stepped back from parts of the UN system, and withdrawn from one treaty: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Subscribe now

1. The UN vs UN bodies

The United Nations is an international organisation.

It was created by a treaty (the UN Charter), and the U.S. is still a UN Member State.

Inside the UN are many programmes, funds and departments that help carry out its work.

These bodies are not separate international organisations, as were not created by their own treaties and do not have independent legal membership.

This matters because there is nothing to legally “withdraw” from.

So when the U.S. says it is leaving these UN bodies, what it really means is this: it will stop voluntary funding, pull U.S. staff and delegates, decline leadership roles, and give up influence over agendas and decisions.

But the U.S. remains bound by the UN Charter and continues to pay mandatory UN dues to remain a UN Member State.

Those mandatory dues can still be distributed across the UN system… just more thinly.

In short: the U.S. is absent from some bodies, but still a member of the UN.

This describes everything on Trump’s “UN Organizations” list except one item.

Share

2. The one real withdrawal: a treaty

The U.S. has withdrawn from one treaty: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This is different, as treaties create binding legal obligations.

Here’s how the two situations compare. (That’s right – it’s table time!)

Share

3. Why do we care?

Both signal a disinterest in multilateralism and an ‘America First’ policy.

Both have financial consequences.

But disengaging from UN bodies is a policy choice, and changes what the U.S. chooses to do.

Withdrawing from the climate treaty is a legal break, and changes what the U.S. is legally required to do.

Understanding this distinction tells us what kind of damage is temporary and what could reshape U.S. influence for years to come.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

• The UN Just Passed a Slave Trade Resolution: A 2-Minute International Law Breakdown

• Four Ways the Next UN Secretary-General Could Actually Strengthen International Law (in 2 minutes)