Hayley Umayam
Doctoral candidate at the Geneva Graduate Institute

Aurel Niederberger
Former postdoctoral researcher at the Global Governance Centre and lead researcher on the project until February 2022

Synopsis: A two-part study explores the strategies and critical moments for scientific reasoning to advance agendas at the UN Security Council.

Keywords: Diplomacy, Science, UN Security Council, Cybersecurity

Scientific reasoning and “the authority of expertise” are well-documented forces in global governance. However, international diplomacy is more commonly understood to be driven by principles of national sovereignty than by scientific and expert knowledge. At the UN Security Council, decision-making procedures center around national sovereignty, allowing states to argue, vote, and (some of them) veto as they wish without regard for evidence or science. Moreover, while science is sometimes
presumed to depoliticise issues by offering objective insights or at least a technocratic framing, it can just as easily create or exacerbate political frictions. For one reason, science often makes universal statements about global phenomena, thus colliding with the strict distinction between internal and external affairs that many states wish to maintain. This is particularly sensitive in a body like the Security Council, which has the power to intervene into a state’s internal affairs once it determines a threat to international peace and security.

Scientific reasoning is found not only in the reports of UN officials invited to brief the Council, but also in the argumentations of member states. How and when have states drawn on science and science- like argumentation at the Security Council? And what are the pitfalls or benefits of doing so? Our recent study examines the argumentation styles, political context, and outcomes of statements on three issue areas to take stock of what has worked to advance agendas at the Security Council. Some indicative patterns emerge based on the coding of 85 statements by Security Council member states and meeting minutes in the areas of women, peace, and security (WPS), information, communication, and technology (ICT), and climate. Our findings, outlined in the report Science and Technology at the UNSC: Leveraging Diplomacy with Science, demonstrate that incorporating falsifiable, cause-and-effect based argumentation or technical expertise — a type of positivist scientific reasoning we call science-enhanced diplomacy — can strengthen initiatives and communications in international diplomacy.

While states often prioritize normative reasoning over scientific reasoning, science-enhanced diplomacy comes into play in some of the most challenging moments for advancing issues. We highlight two key instances. First, states may bolster their arguments with scientific or expert reports when a topic is a newer agenda item or lacks formal agreements within the Council. However, we identify a hierarchy of sources, where states prefer to draw on the Council’s own decisions and documentation to support their arguments whenever possible. This increases the appeal of less formal settings like Arria-Formula Meetings, which, among other qualities, provide a track record of Council activity that can be referenced in future debates.

Second, states often turn to science and expertise to establish causal links between a given phenomenon and international peace and security when facing resistance for pursuing a new issue at the Council. Establishing this causal link is crucial given the Council’s mandate to maintain international peace and security. Again, Arria-Formula Meetings provide a venue for science- enhanced diplomacy as a space for a broader range of experts – beyond those typically invited to formal debates – to help make such causal claims. In contrast, states arguing that a phenomenon does not fall under the Council’s responsibility and therefore does not belong on the Council’s agenda rely more on normative argumentation.

The report also identifies various strategies in which scientific or technological expertise helps to tailor topics in ways that are more likely to generate consensus or minimise controversy. Topic tailorings deliberately restrict the scope of scientific and technical concerns – for instance, to more specific sub- themes or geographic or political contexts. Our second report on this topic, Science and Technology at the UNSC: Cybersecurity and New Technologies, explores prominent examples of such tailoring. For instance, while debates on emerging technologies quickly lay bare deep rifts among some of the member states, a focus on the use of emerging technologies “in peacekeeping” had permitted the Council to express itself consensually on this topic (through Presidential Statement S/PRST/2021/17). Scientific and technical knowledge thus support the (inherently political) task of conceiving viable topics. The second report addresses the use of technical expertise in opening up spaces of discussion and exploring areas of agreement in the area of cybersecurity and emerging technologies, which are often highly sensitive in the Council.

Rather than convincing other states to change their preferences by the sheer power of logic, science-enhanced diplomacy can yield benefits that are more mundane. The following benefits stood out from our interviews with experts as well as our own analysis:

● Exploring compromise: Scientific arguments can create spaces for compromise with objecting states, fostering dialogue, and mutual understanding. For that, they do not necessarily need to change states’ preferences. Rather, science provides additional language to break issues down into specific subsets, helping to find areas where agreement is possible and multiplying opportunities for incremental progress.

● Shaping Agendas: The use of scientific evidence can shape agendas and narratives both within and beyond the Security Council, influencing global discourse on pressing issues.

● Fostering Cooperation: Science-driven diplomacy opens doors for international cooperation, facilitating joint efforts to address complex challenges. This can start with such simple initiatives as co-organizing informal events at the UN. Basing the event on scientific reasoning can be one way to attract co-organizers and supporters.

● Positive publicity: By showcasing a commitment to science, states can enhance their public image and credibility on a global stage.

Overall, from shaping agendas to creating spaces for compromise, science-enhanced diplomacy increases opportunities for agreement and cooperation. These findings come at a timely moment, as Switzerland held an Arria-Formula Meeting on “Unlocking the Potential of Science and Data for International Peace and Security” on May 17. Even in a world marked by geopolitical tensions and uncertainty, the Leveraging Diplomacy with Science report shows how science-enhanced tools and argumentation can be part of a wider approach to achieving a range of diplomatic outcomes. Finally, by reminding us that formal events and outcomes are just one way in which the Council pursues its mandate, these findings also add nuance to discussions of the performance and legitimacy of the Council.