Faculty Advisor

Chris Kendall

Area of Study

Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences

Publication Date

Summer 2021


In the case of the HIV/AIDS crisis, the UNSC passed a resolution that protected UN peacekeepers. During the Ebola crisis, the UNSC passed a resolution asking member states to open up their borders to international travel and trade. These actions did little to resolve the actual crises, and mainly benefitted the UNSC and UN Peacekeeping troops. This practice is echoed in the UNSC's attempts to include environmental elements into their peacekeeping missions. These solutions, although a step in the right direction, fail to address the root cause of these issues. This shows that the UNSC only takes action on human security issues when it is an issue that directly impacts their troops, or if it is essentially costless to the Council to implement. Making peacekeeping missions more environmentally friendly benefits the UNSC by projecting an image that they care about climate change, without actually taking any action to mitigate the root cause of the issue. It seems that these types of resolutions and acknowledgments of human security issues are the best the UNSC can do, due to several issues including: difficulty introducing the idea of human security into the more traditional definition of security, UN member states positions on the issue, and the capacity of the UNSC to address this issue. I will argue that until these specific barriers are resolved, the UNSC will be unable to officially designate climate change a threat to international peace and security, nor will it be able to take the action necessary to mitigate the security implications of climate change.


Simpson Kraft


University of Puget Sound