国際連合安全保障理事会決議338（こくさいれんごうあんぜんほしょうりじかいけつぎ338）は、1973年10月22日に国際連合安全保障理事会で採択された決議である。第四次中東戦争に関係する。

アメリカ合衆国とソビエト連邦の共同提案に基づいて第四次中東戦争の停戦を要請するもので、決議が採択されてから12時間以内に停戦が発効するように規定された。「適切な支援（appropriate auspices）」という文言は国連ではなくアメリカ合衆国とソビエト連邦によるものと解釈され、この第3項により1973年12月ののための枠組みが構築された。

この決議は、安保理の第1747回会合において、賛成14、棄権1（中華人民共和国）で採択されたが、依然として戦闘が続き、安保理決議339で停戦がなされた。

決議の内容は以下の通り。

Binding or non-binding issue
The alleged importance of resolution 338 in the Arab–Israeli conflict supposedly stems from the word "decides" in clause 3 which is held to make resolution 242 binding. However, the decision in clause 3 does not relate to resolution 242, but rather to the need to begin negotiations on a just and durable peace in the Middle East that led to the Geneva Conference which Syria did not attend.

The argument continues; Article 25 of the United Nations Charter says that UN members "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". It is generally accepted that Security Council resolutions adopted according to Chapter VII of the UN Charter in the exercise of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace in accordance with the UN Charter are binding upon the member states.

Scholars applying this doctrine on the resolution assert that the use of the word "decide" makes it a "decision" of the Council, thus invoking the binding nature of article 25. The legal force added to Resolution 242 by this resolution is the reason for the otherwise puzzling fact that SC 242 and the otherwise seemingly superfluous and superannuated Resolution 338 are always referred to together in legal documents relating to the conflict.

The more obvious need for the use of Resolution 338 is that it requires all parties to cease fire and states when that should occur, without which Resolution 242 can't be accomplished.

Some scholars have advanced the position that the resolution was passed as a non-binding Chapter VI recommendation. Other commentators assert that it probably was passed as a binding Chapter VII resolution. The resolution contains reference to neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII.

決議の受諾
エジプトとイスラエルは10月22日に決議を受諾したが、シリア、イラク、ヨルダンは拒絶した。

Execution requirements of the Resolution by Egypt and Israel
An October 22 United Nations-brokered ceasefire quickly unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach.
According to some sources, Egypt broke the cease-fire first:
The cease fire soon violated because Egypt's Third Army Corps tried to break free of the Israeli Army's encirclement. The Egyptian action and the arrival of more Soviet equipment to Cairo permitted Israel to tighten its grip on the Egyptians
According to other sources, Israel broke the cease-fire first:

On October 22 the superpowers brokered UN Security Council Resolution 338. It provided the legal basis for ending the war, calling for a cease-fire to be in place within twelve hours, implementation of Resolution 242 'in all its parts' and negotiations between the parties. This marked the first occasion the Soviets had endorsed direct negotiations between the Arabs and Israel without conditions or qualifications. Golda Meir, the Israeli Ptine Minister, who was not consulted, was offended by this fait accompli, though she had little option but to comply.

Nevertheless, Meir was determined to gain the maximum strategic advantage before the final curtain came down on the conflict. Given the entanglement of the Egyptian and Israeli armies, the temptation was too great for the Israelis to resist. After a final push in the Sinai expelled the Egyptians, Meir gave the order to cross the Canal.

Israel's refusal to stop fighting after a United Nations cease-fire was in place on October 22 nearly involved the Soviet Union in the military confrontation.

中東和平の外交と条約
 
 パリ講和会議
 
 キャンプ・デービッド合意
 エジプト・イスラエル平和条約
 中東和平会議
 オスロ合意
 イスラエル・ヨルダン平和条約
 Camp David 2000 Summit
 Israeli–Palestinian peace process
 Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
 List of Middle East peace proposals
 International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict