The thesis examines the legitimacy of the expanding powers of the Security Council and addresses the question of whether such hypertrophy serves the purpose of strengthening the rule of law in international relations, as endeavoured by the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration.
When the Security Council acts as a legislator, adjudicator and enforcer, its extraordinary degree of compulsory jurisdiction aggravates the democratic deficit within the main political organ of the United Nations and raises concern not only with lack of representation but also with the absence of mechanisms of control and judicial review which are part of the evolution of nation states to prevent abuses of power.
As the jurisdiction of the Security Council is expanded through practice, rather than through reform, and the concept of what constitutes a threat to international peace and security evolves within that political organ, concerns on legitimacy and legality of its mandatory decisions become even more relevant and challenging for those nation states which are not permanent members of the Security Council and cannot participate in the process nor exercise consent.
The thesis is based on comparative concepts pertaining to national and international legal orders as well as its historic and political analysis. This multidisciplinary approach seeks to assess the relationship between international public law and international politics and the extent to which a more legally grounded global community contributes to stability and legitimacy in international relations.