The Security Council’s structure as a small but powerful executive, combined with its primary responsibility for international peace and security, leads to a presumption against the application of ordinary standards of procedural fairness. At the same time, explicit provisions of the Charter and its own rules of procedure indicate that some balance was to be struck. This article questions whether the attainment of international criminal jurisdiction through Security Council decision-making really outweighs the need to ensure procedural integrity in every step of the process. It posits that a lack of procedural fairness in the Council's methods of work at least undermines the justice imperative that the Council so espouses and at most violates an ancillary legal obligation.