ABSTRACT
The United Nations Security Council’s dealing with the Syria crisis in 2011/2012 is the second of two case studies used in the analysis of how justification as practice of normative ordering affects the meaning of Security Council responsibility. The Syria crisis is a crucial case because it resulted in an historical paralysis of the Council which has prevented it from taking any meaningful action since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. It is important for understanding the contested meaning of Security Council responsibility because of the unparalleled situation of three consecutive double vetoes cast by Russia and China. While the use of the veto is legal according to the UN Charter, controversy arose whether these vetoes would maintain or violate the Council’s responsibility towards Syria. The chapter starts by discussing how to identify a normative controversy regarding the consequences of the veto during the Syria crisis. I then turn to a text analysis of all public Council meetings within this timeframe to identify potential principles of worth related to Security Council responsibility. Finally, I present a micro-level analysis of the 6711th Security Council meeting, in which Russia and China cast their second double veto, and demonstrate how competing principles of worth unfold in practices of normative ordering.
