E10 Dynamics and the Elected Members' Role
How the ten elected Security Council members convert procedural rules, penholder reforms, and caucusing into substantive influence despite lacking the veto.
The E10 in the Council's Architecture
The Security Council's ten elected members (E10) sit alongside the five permanent members (P5) under Article 23 of the UN Charter. Elected by the General Assembly for two-year, non-renewable terms under a regional distribution fixed by GA Resolution 1991 A (XVIII) of 17 December 1963, the E10 fill five seats annually: three African and Asia-Pacific, one Eastern European, two Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC), and two Western European and Others (WEOG). One of the African/Asia-Pacific seats has, by convention since 1968, been reserved for an Arab state alternating between the two groups.
Election requires a two-thirds majority of GA members present and voting under Rule 83 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Competitive races—Canada's 2020 defeat by Norway and Ireland, or Australia's 2012 victory over Finland and Luxembourg—demonstrate that E10 seats are contested diplomatic prizes, not pro forma rotations.
Procedural Powers and Substantive Leverage
The E10 cannot veto, but they hold three structural levers. First, every Council decision—procedural or substantive—requires nine affirmative votes under Article 27. Without at least four E10 votes, no resolution passes, even with P5 unanimity. The E10 thus possess a collective veto on adoption, exercised through abstention or negative votes. The 23 December 2016 adoption of Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements (14-0-1) illustrated E10 cohesion when the United States abstained rather than vetoed; the E10 sponsorship by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, and Venezuela was decisive.
Second, the rotating monthly presidency under Rule 18 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure gives each E10 member control of the programme of work, the right to convene meetings, issue presidential statements (S/PRST documents), and shape the agenda. Mexico's June 2021 presidency on conflict and food security and Niger's September 2020 presidency on governance in Africa show how E10 presidencies inject thematic priorities the P5 might otherwise sideline.
Third, the penholder system—an informal practice formalized in Note S/2017/507 by then-President Japan—traditionally concentrates drafting authority in the P3 (US, UK, France). E10 challenges to penholder monopolies have grown: in 2020, Belgium and Germany co-penned the Sudan/South Sudan files; in 2022, Ireland and Norway shared the Syria humanitarian file. Note 507 explicitly endorses co-penholding and consultative drafting, providing procedural cover for E10 assertiveness.
Caucusing Patterns
The E10 has institutionalized coordination through the monthly E10 coordination meeting, established informally during the 2018-2019 term and now a fixture. The A3+ format (the three African members plus a rotating partner, often Saint Vincent and the Grenadines or Guyana) coordinates positions on African files, frequently aligned with the African Union Peace and Security Council's communiqués pursuant to the AU-UN partnership framework under Chapter VIII.
Thematic caucuses have proliferated: the Group of Friends on Climate and Security (co-chaired by Ireland and Kenya in 2021-2022), the Women, Peace and Security focal points network, and ad hoc groupings on humanitarian access. These structures convert numerical strength into negotiating capacity, enabling E10 members to present drafts the P5 must engage rather than ignore.
The E10 also exploit asymmetric information: smaller delegations rotate through subsidiary body chairmanships (sanctions committees, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, the 1540 Committee), accumulating dossier expertise that P5 missions, despite larger staffs, sometimes lack on technical files.