The UN Security Council Has Changed, Here’s How

Why It Matters

The erosion of consensus hampers swift, coordinated sanctions, reshaping global non‑proliferation enforcement and raising geopolitical uncertainty.

Key Takeaways

• UN Security Council consensus on Iran resolutions ended after 2016
• Same loss of unanimity now affects North Korea sanctions discussions
• Future Council actions will become transactional, case‑by‑case in practice
• P5 members still influence outcomes despite lack of consensus
• Absence of consensus may slow collective response to global threats

Summary

The video explains that the United Nations Security Council, which once routinely adopted resolutions on Iran and North Korea by unanimous consent, has lost that ability to reach consensus.

Historically, from the early 2000s through 2016, the P5 managed to align on sanctions against Tehran and Pyongyang despite deep political rifts. The speaker notes that recent votes have required formal ballots, signaling a shift toward a more transactional, issue‑by‑issue approach.

He quotes, “Consensus is gone,” and adds, “It’s not a bromance,” underscoring that the Council’s unity was never perfect but was functional. The new reality means each case will be negotiated on its own merits, with the permanent members leveraging their veto power more overtly.

This change could delay collective action, increase diplomatic bargaining, and weaken the Council’s credibility in enforcing non‑proliferation norms, reshaping how states pursue security objectives.

Original Description

“We have to be reminded of the fact that until 2016 or 2017, resolutions at the UN Security Council on Iran were adopted by consensus without a vote, all right? And I think this question allows us to be reminded that that consensus is gone. And I don’t see it coming back, perhaps for a long, long time. And it doesn’t apply only to Iran in this capacity of the Security Council to find a common denominator,” says Rafael M. Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and nominee for the position of UN secretary-general. “But that doesn’t mean that you are not going to get to the functionalities that you need in certain cases. I think, from now on, what we are going to see is a completely transactional operation of the Security Council. Said in a less techy way, case by case.”

Subscribe to our channel: https://goo.gl/WCYsH7

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Visit the CFR website: http://www.cfr.org

Follow CFR on X: http://www.twitter.com/cfr_org

Follow CFR on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/councilonforeignrelations/