This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2019) |
UN Security Council Resolution 2240 | ||
---|---|---|
Date | 14 October 2015 | |
Meeting no. | 7531 | |
Code | S/RES/2240 ((2015) Document) | |
Subject | Capacity building of state institutions | |
Voting summary |
| |
Result | Adopted | |
Security Council composition | ||
Permanent members | ||
Non-permanent members | ||
|
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) was adopted by the UN Security Council on 9 October 2015. Fourteen members of the Council voted in favor, while only Venezuela abstained. The resolution aims to address human insecurity at sea and is an example of how the UN Security Council uses its power in the maritime domain to enhance maritime security.[1]
The proposal was brought to the council in response complaints by countries about migrant smuggling and human trafficking on the Libyan coast. It allowed countries on the Libyan coast to intercept and seize ships suspected of human smuggling.[2][3]
The proposal was brought to the Council by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy from the European Union ahead of the launch of Operation Sophia.[4] This was an attempt by European countries to address the ongoing illegal migration from Africa to Europe but also maritime insecurity by launching a military mission. This mission hoped to disrupt the business model of traffickers and migrant smugglers by identifying which vessels were used for such activities and then capturing and disposing of those vessels.[4] This mission was not framed as a rescue mission, but it was to prevent more people from losing their lives on the journey over the Mediterranean Sea.[5] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) was not adopted until after the second phase of Operation Sophia had begun.[6]
Venezuela's reasoning for abstaining was that the resolution's plan would not solve the problem. In particular, the application of Chapter VII[7] of the UN Charter of the humanitarian crisis would be a dangerous precedent, with the Security Council entering the waters through a loophole. The country also claimed that it was also necessary to solve the problems that drove people to look for safer places.[2] Venezuela also objected to what they perceived as the criminalization and the securitization of migrants and asylum seekers.[8]