طبق ماده ۲۵ منشور ، کشورهای عضو سازمان ملل متحد ملزم به انجام "تصمیمات شورای امنیت مطابق با این منشور" هستند. قطعنامه هایی که تحت فصل هفتم صادر می شوند ، لازم الاجرا محسوب می شوند ، اما قطعنامه های مربوط به فصل VI هیچ مکانیسم اجرایی ندارند و به طور کلی طبق قوانین بین المللی فاقد هرگونه الزام آور هستند. در سال ۱۹۷۱ ، بیشتر اعضای دادگاه بین المللی دادگستری آن زمان (ICJ) در رایزنی غیر الزام آور "نامیبیا" اظهار داشتند که کلیه قطعنامه های شورای امنیت سازمان ملل از نظر قانونی لازم الاجرا است. "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)" , Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter." این ادعا توسط ICJ و دیگران مقابله شده است. "The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is "not" binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make "all" decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. "Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas", Springer, 2004, , p. 58. دی وت معتقد است که قطعنامه های فصل ششم "نمی" توانند لازم الاجرا باشند. در استدلال او ، در بخشی از اظهارات:اجازه دادن به شورای امنیت برای اتخاذ تدابیر لازم الاجرا در بخش VI می تواند تقسیم ساختاری صلاحیت های پیش بینی شده در فصل های VI و VII را از بین ببرد. هدف کلی از تفکیک این فصل ها تمایز بین اقدامات داوطلبانه و الزام آور است. در حالی که حل و فصل خاص اختلافات ارائه شده توسط سابق با رضایت طرفین ایجاد می شود ، اقدامات اجباری از نظر فصل هفتم با عدم وجود چنین موافقت مشخص می شود. نشانه دیگری از ماهیت غیر الزام آور اقدامات صورت گرفته از نظر فصل ششم ، تعهد اعضای شورای امنیت که طرف اختلاف هستند ، هنگام تصویب قطعنامه های مندرج در فصل VI ، از رأی دادن خودداری کنند. هیچ تعهدی مشابه در مورد قطعنامه های لازم الاجرا تصویب شده در فصل هفتم وجود ندارد. . . اگر کسی این استدلال را در مورد "نظر نامیبیا اعمال" کند ، نکته تعیین کننده این است که هیچ یک از مواد تحت فصل VI تصویب نوع اقدامات لازم را که توسط شورای امنیت در قطعنامه ۲۷۶ (۱۹۷۰) تصویب شده است ، تسهیل نمی کند. . . قطعنامه ۲۶۰ (۱۹۷۰) در واقع از نظر فصل هفتم تصویب شد ، حتی اگر ICJ برای ایجاد تصور مخالف طول کشید. De Wet, Erika. "The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council", Hart Publishing, 2004, , pp. 39-40.در عمل ، شورای امنیت تصمیمات خود را خارج از فصل هفتم لازم الاجرا نمی داند. "The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is "not" binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make "all" decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. "Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas", Springer, 2004, , p. 58.