As of March 1, the UN Security Council has been presided by two countries, France and Germany. It could be one of the few positive consequences of Brexit for the EU.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has committed South Africa to prioritising human rights and democracy. But, there's little evidence of this.
For decades, international law did not allow one country to attack another that was using chemical weapons on its own people without UN approval. That’s changed, which means trouble for Syria.
The first President Bush had some impressive foreign policies wins, but could he be best remembered for getting the US entangled in Iraq?
The lifting of UN Sanctions is unlikely to end internal and external pressure for reform and greater democracy in Eritrea.
Pik Botha defended apartheid and South Africa's occupation of Namibia, but in the end helped end both.
By standing in the way of the UN, Russia has chosen a shameful path.
Insiders talk of Brexit as a distraction that is compromising influence on this important international body.
The federal government has set aside $22.2 million to develop and co-ordinate sanctions while educating Canadians about their obligations. Where to start is the first question.
IS is a distinctive kind of threat – and the atrocities it's committed demand a tailor-made form of justice.
A new strategy from the UN secretary general challenges the world to explain why it's not doing more to defuse the nuclear threat.
South Africa must position itself to play a decisive role in shaping a new world order as the theUS retreats from global leadership.
The UN's Responsibility to Protect framework for safeguarding civilians against atrocities could help resolve the Gaza crisis.
The council has considered terrorism, nuclear weapons and international crime. But it has largely ignored the climate.
South Africa's relations with the US could sour under President Trump.
As the UK and US retreat from the global scene, Germany is ready to step up to preserve the liberal international order and is seeking a seat on the UN Security Council.
If states are permitted to determine when force is warranted, outside the existing legal framework, the legitimacy of that framework may be fatally undermined.
While the Syria strikes were clearly violating international law, using force to uphold the ban on chemical weapons is becoming acceptable in the international community.
The United Nations Charter doesn't allow the use of military force to prevent chemical weapons attacks — no matter how evil — without UN Security Council approval. That needs to change.
The legal standards for military intervention are complicated and highly specific. It's not clear an attack on Syria would meet them.