The Arria-formula meeting takes its name from Ambassador Diego Arria of Venezuela, who as President of the United Nations Security Council in March 1992 convened an informal session in the UN Delegates' Lounge to hear testimony from a Bosnian Croat priest, Father Jozo Zovko, about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Because Council rules of procedure—provisional since 1946 and never formally adopted—do not contemplate testimony from private individuals during formal meetings, Arria invented an ad hoc format outside the Council chamber, with members participating in their personal capacity. The practice has no basis in the UN Charter or in the Provisional Rules of Procedure (S/96/Rev.7); it survives entirely as a working-methods innovation, codified retrospectively in the Council's Note by the President S/2017/507, which consolidated practices on transparency and interaction with non-members.
Procedurally, an Arria-formula meeting is initiated by one or more Council members who circulate a concept note identifying the briefers, the topic, and the proposed date. There is no requirement of consensus to convene the meeting itself, though the host delegation typically seeks broad participation. The meeting is chaired by the sponsoring ambassador rather than the rotating Council President, distinguishing it from formal sessions. No verbatim record is produced, no outcome document is negotiated, no resolution is adopted, and no presidential statement issues. Briefers—who may include NGO representatives, academics, journalists, human-rights defenders, victims of conflict, or officials of states and organizations not otherwise invited—speak directly to members, who then engage in question-and-answer exchanges off the record.
Several variants have evolved. The original Arria format requires physical presence; since 2014, video-teleconference briefings have permitted participants in conflict zones to address members remotely, used notably for Syrian civil-society voices. "Open" Arria meetings, webcast on UN Web TV, were pioneered in the 2010s to broaden civic access, while "closed" Arrias preserve the original confidential character for sensitive testimony. A parallel device, the "informal interactive dialogue," is convened by the Council President rather than an individual member and addresses governments rather than civil society. Some Council members—China and Russia in particular—have historically declined to attend Arria meetings they deem politically motivated, and their absence does not invalidate the proceeding.
Recent practice illustrates the format's range. In April 2022, the United States, Albania, and France co-hosted an Arria-formula meeting on accountability for atrocities in Ukraine, featuring testimony from Ukrainian prosecutors and survivors of Bucha. In June 2023, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland convened an Arria on climate, peace, and security after Russia vetoed a draft resolution on the same subject the previous year. Mexico and Ireland organized sessions on protection of humanitarian personnel during their 2021–2022 terms, and Brazil hosted an Arria on artificial intelligence and international peace and security in 2023. The format has also been deployed by the so-called E10 (elected members) to surface issues the P5 prefer to suppress, including the human-rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, addressed in repeated Arrias since 2014.
The Arria-formula meeting is distinct from several adjacent mechanisms. Unlike a formal Council meeting under Rule 37, it produces no record in the S/PV series and adopts no decisions. Unlike informal consultations of the whole, which are intramural negotiations among the 15 members preparing formal action, Arrias are oriented outward toward non-Council interlocutors. Unlike a briefing under Rule 39, which permits the Council in formal session to invite individuals to provide information at the invitation of the Council itself, an Arria does not require Council agreement and the briefer is the guest of the convening delegation. And unlike the "Somavía formula" for interaction with troop-contributing countries, the Arria addresses substantive policy rather than peacekeeping-mission management.
Controversies persist. Critics argue that Arrias have proliferated to the point of diluting their original purpose—Security Council Report counted more than two dozen in 2022 alone—and that some sponsors use them as political theater rather than genuine information-gathering. Russia has periodically convened counter-Arrias on Western interventions in Libya, Iraq, and Kosovo, prompting walkouts by other members. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic forced an extended period of fully virtual Arrias, which the Russian Federation initially contested as procedurally illegitimate before the practice was normalized. Questions of briefer security have also arisen: human-rights defenders who testified in Arrias on Belarus, Myanmar, and Nicaragua have faced subsequent retaliation, prompting debate about whether anonymized testimony should be permitted.
For the working practitioner, the Arria-formula meeting is the principal procedural opening through which voices unwelcome in the formal Council chamber—dissidents, indicted officials' victims, scientists, technology executives, displaced persons—can address the body that wields Chapter VII authority. Desk officers preparing a minister's UN week should track the Arria calendar published informally through Security Council Report and the What's In Blue bulletin, since attendance signals political alignment without committing the capital to a formal vote. For NGO advocates, securing an Arria slot is frequently the highest realistic ambition for direct Council engagement on a thematic file. The format's flexibility, low procedural cost, and capacity to circumvent the veto on agenda-setting make it the single most consequential informal innovation in the Council's post-Cold War working methods.
Example
In April 2022, the United States, Albania, and France convened an Arria-formula meeting on accountability for atrocities in Ukraine, featuring testimony from Ukrainian prosecutors and survivors of the Bucha killings.