 You may remember that according to Article 48 of the UN Charter, the UN member states must obey and implement the binding resolutions adopted by the City Council under Chapter 7. And furthermore, Article 25 of the Charter reads as follows. The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the City Council in accordance with the present Charter. Article 25 is included in Chapter 5 of the Charter, which defines the composition of the City Council, its functions, powers, voting and procedure. Because Article 25 is not part of Chapter 7, the question of its relationship with Chapter 7 arises. Is Article 25 just a repetition of Article 48? Or is Article 25 an autonomous provision allowing the Security Council to take binding decisions even when it is not acting under Chapter 7? The answer to that question has been given by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia advisory opinion. The Court said that Article 25 would be superfluous if it was only to apply to enforcement measures decided under Chapter 7, that therefore Article 25 was not confined to such measures and that it entitled the Security Council to take binding measures outside Chapter 7. But if this is so, then another question arises. Are all the Security Council resolutions binding because of Article 25? And the answer to that question is clearly no. Some resolutions are only recommendations, while others are binding decisions. But then, yet another question arises. How to make the difference between recommendations or decisions? If the recital of the resolution refers to a threat to the peace and to Chapter 7, it is easy to conclude that the resolution is binding. But if the Security Council does not refer to Chapter 7, how can we know if it is a recommendation or a decision? Should one presume that the Council acted under Article 25 so that the resolution is binding? Or should one presume the opposite? Well actually, no presumption applies here. In one way or another. And one needs to consider each resolution and each paragraph in each resolution for what it is. Assessing the binding character of a resolution outside Chapter 7 must be done on a case by case basis. And the Court said this, I quote, the language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect. In view of the nature of the powers under Article 25, the question whether they have been in fact exercised is to be determined in each case. Having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the charter provisions in vote and in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences of the resolution of the Security Council end of quote. So clearly, it is not the same thing for the Council to urge, call upon or encourage parties to a conflict to do something, or to request, demand that same thing from them, or to decide that they should behave in a certain way. While the first three verbs do not convey the sense of a legal obligation, the last three do so. If a resolution is binding, either because it has been adopted under Chapter 7, or because of Article 25 independently from Chapter 7, it is binding as a matter of principle on all member states of the UN, except if the Council provides something specific for some of them. And let me elaborate a bit further on the ratione personescope of the Security Council's binding resolutions. Resolutions are binding on member states, but they are not binding on non-member states, and this is self-evident, it is obvious. Third states are not bound by the Charter, nor by acts adopted by the UN under the Charter. However, Article 2, paragraph 6 of the UN Charter states that the UN shall ensure that non-member states act in accordance with the Charter principles in the field of peace and security. And the Security Council has very often called upon third states and upon third international organizations to act consistently with its resolutions, and most of the time, those third states and organizations do so. Also, more and more often, the Council directly commands non-state actors to do something. For instance, in a civil war, the Council requests from all the belligerents to behave in a certain way. The question of the binding character and direct effect of resolutions upon non-state actors and individuals is a controversial issue because it indirectly raises the question of the international legal personality of non-state actors, having obligations under international law means, having some form of passive international personality. But because we speak here about terrorist groups, rebellious movements, etc., states are very reluctant to contemplate that they would have some form of international legal personality because states fear that legal personality would unduly enhance the legitimacy of those non-state actors. I personally think that one should not make too much about that issue. The charter does not prevent the Council from taking decisions having direct effect in domestic legal orders. But more fundamentally, what matters is whether non-state actors conform with what the Council requires from them irrespective of whether they had a legal choice to do so or not. From the point of view of the Council, compliance or non-compliance is a factual matter and even if non-compliance does not constitute a breach of a binding obligation because there was no such obligation for the non-state actor, the Council may still determine that the behavior of non-state actors is a threat to the peace and accordingly take additional measures against it. Well, let me go a step further. The Secret Council resolution is a unilateral act of the United Nations and it constitutes second legislation by the organization and you may remember what was said on unilateral acts of international organizations at the end of week four in this course. Furthermore, and according to Article 103 of the Charter that you may remember from week five when we addressed conflicting obligations, the obligations under the UN Charter prevail over any other conflicting obligation under other treaties. Article 103 applies to the obligations arising from Security Council resolutions because those resolutions are binding for the member states under the Charter.