Click here to download the full paper (PDF)
Authored By: Mohan Kumar N, Assistant Professor, Vidyavardhaka First Grade College, Mysuru,
Click here for Copyright Policy.
I. ABSTRACT:
“To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” are among the first very words of the UN Charter (in its Preamble), and those words were the main motivation for creating the United Nations, whose founders had lived through the devastation of two world wars by 1945. Since the UN’s creation on 24 October 1945 (the date its Charter came into force), the United Nations has often been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating into war, or to help restore peace following the outbreak of armed conflict, and to promote lasting peace in societies emerging from wars. 76 years and half a trillion dollars later, the international community is divided on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Overall, the UN has a positive international image but the partisan divide over supporting the UN has widened, particularly in the United States. The United States’ perception of the UN is important since the United States is the largest donor to the UN and accounts for roughly 20% of the UN’s collective budget”.
II. SUCCESSES:
II.I MATERIAL ASSISTANCE:
The United Nations provides a lifeline to millions of people across the world. The World Food Program provides food and cash assistance to over 80 million people. The United Nations provides aid to nearly 69 million displaced people who fled their home due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violations. Furthermore, UN agencies supply 45% of the world’s children with vaccines, saving an estimated 2 to 3 million lives each year from preventable diseases.
II.II HUMAN RIGHTS:
The United Nations established the first comprehensive framework for human rights law. The organization defined human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together, these documents defined the rights to equality, free movement, education, religion, and asylum, along with many others. The UN also established mechanisms to promote and protect the rights it outlines. The Human Rights Council, composed of 47 representatives, conducts a review every four years where it assesses the human rights record of all UN member states and presents nations with recommendations. The Council recently came under scrutiny for allowing China to become a member following reports of flagrant human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the oversight bodies which are responsible for enforcing treaties after they are ratified. Although it is unclear whether recommendations and oversight result in legislative changes, the UN’s efforts at the very least create an international standard for nations to strive towards.
II.III DECOLONIZATION:
Wwhen the UN was founded in 1945, 750 million people lived in territories controlled by a colonial power. Less than 2 million people live under colonial rule today. A key feature of the human rights framework of the United Nations involves every nation’s right to sovereignty and self-determination. The General Assembly passed multiple resolutions on decolonization, including its landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and four International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism resolutions. The Special Committee on Decolonization regularly reviews the list of non-self-governing territories and invites representatives from these territories to issue statements at its annual sessions. The UN played a major role in decolonization efforts following WWII and continues to provide a forum to discuss international objectives like decolonization[1].
III. LIMITATIONS:
III.I ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS:
A recurring criticism of the UN is its inability to effectively enforce mandates. The UN is only as effective as member states allow and members go to great lengths to ensure national sovereignty. Therefore, General Assembly resolutions are typically considered to be recommendations. The Security Council can enforce its resolutions by means of sanctions or military force, but any one of the five permanent council members can veto a bill so harsh mechanisms are not frequently used.
III.II SECURITY COUNCIL INACTION:
The Security Council is tasked with taking action to maintain international peace and security; however, the veto poses an obstacle to action. P-5 nations ultimately determine what conflicts constitute actionable threats to international peace and security by exercising their veto power. Unsurprisingly these nations have advanced their national interests since the Council’s inception. Following the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, the P-5 nations were in a deadlock. The United Kingdom, United States, and France presented a resolution declaring the Venezuelan election illegitimate and calling for new elections. Russia and China proposed a resolution condemning outside intervention in the election process and called for dialogue in Venezuela. Both resolutions failed and the deadlock delayed the delivery of critical aid. P-5 nations disagree on how most conflicts should be handled causing frequent inaction in the UNSC.
III.III WESTERN DOMINATION OF UN INSTITUTIONS:
Despite its mission emphasizing inclusion and representation, the UN is typically viewed as a Western-oriented organization. From the UN’s inception, European and American interests have prevailed. One example is developmental aid. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are primarily responsible for coordinating economic development efforts while the UN provides guidelines for sustainable development and oversight. Together, they implement the UN’s economic development framework. Both the IMF and World Bank condition loans on neoliberal features like trade liberalization, private enterprise, and an overall reduction in public spending (i.e. the size of government). These practices were especially controversial during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the IMF conditioned loans on tight austerity measures like reductions in public health spending and unemployment benefits.
III.IV PEACEKEEPING: THE INTERSECTION OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE:
While the UN has successfully led several peacekeeping missions and promoting peace and security is integral to its mission, it failed to intervene in a timely manner and prevent genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Institutional shortcomings contributed to grave UN peacekeeping failures in both Rwanda and Bosnia. First, UN peacekeepers are held to a strict mandate to only use force in self-defence or to help evacuate foreigners. Second, the UN failed to train peacekeepers to negotiate with perpetrators of violence against civilians. Similarly, there existed a cultural disconnect between the training peacekeepers received and the reality of local communities. More generally, peacekeeping is limited in that intervention requires the consent of the host government and other parties to the conflict which makes swift action more difficult.
III.V FUTURE OF UN OPERATIONS:
The UN is currently facing large financial constraints considering the pandemic and the growing number of individuals in need of assistance across the globe. As of September 2020, member states only paid 60% of their contributions to the UN’s general budget. As a result, some UN-appointed human rights experts who work under the Human Rights Council were unable to carry out their mandate to monitor and address human rights abuses. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees operated with 47% of its $9.1 billion budget and cut back on programs providing emergency shelter, water, and food to refugees. UN operations as we know it are at risk if nations fail to bolster financial support for the organization.
Furthermore, the UN is still recovering from Trump’s presidency characterized by an isolationist approach to foreign policy. During the Trump era, the United States left the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), threatened to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and ended its commitment to numerous international agreements like the Paris Climate Accords. The UN heavily relies on the United States for funding and assistance with key programs. Although President Biden recommitted the United States to the UN, US reliability and credibility took a hit[2]. The Charter of the United Nations gives the Security Council the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The General Assembly and the Secretary-General play major, important, and complementary roles, along with other UN offices and bodies. The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic sanctions to international military action. The Council also establishes UN Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Council expresses its will in resolutions. The most effective way to diminish human suffering and the massive economic costs of conflicts and their aftermath is to prevent conflicts in the first place. The United Nations plays an important role in conflict prevention, using diplomacy, good offices, and mediation to help nations prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully[3]. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has Special and Personal Representatives, Envoys and Advisers who are dispatched to areas of tension around the world to assist in defusing crises and brokering negotiated settlements to conflicts. The Secretary-General may also exercise their “good offices” to facilitate the resolution of the conflict — steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon their independence, impartiality, and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating, or spreading. Civilian-led political missions are deployed to the field with mandates to encourage dialogue and cooperation within and between nations, or to promote reconciliation and democratic governance in societies rebuilding after civil wars. The work of the United Nations to foster credible elections around the world also contributes directly to its efforts to promote peace and prevent conflict. Underpinning the activities is the conviction that political issues lie at the root of many conflicts, and thus political solutions are required to resolve them.
III.VI PEACE KEEPING:
Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective tools available to the UN to assist countries to navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. Today’s multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called upon not only to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate political processes, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of former combatants; support constitutional processes and the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law and extending legitimate state authority.
UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:
- Consent of the parties.
- Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
Peacekeeping operations get their mandates from the UN Security Council; their troops and police are contributed by Member States; and they are managed by the Department of Peace Operations and supported by the Department of Operational Support at UN Headquarters in New York. The first peacekeeping mission was the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), set up in 1945 to monitor an Armistice Agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Since then, more than one million women and men from 125 countries have served in 71 UN peacekeeping missions around the world. Today there are 12 UN peacekeeping operations currently deployed with 90,000 civilian, police, and military peacekeepers. In 2019, the Secretary-General launched the Action for Peacekeeping Initiative (A4P) to renew mutual political commitment to peacekeeping operations. The annual UN peacekeeping budget is less than 0.5 per cent of global military spending. United Nations peace building activities are aimed at assisting countries emerging from conflict, reducing the risk of relapsing into conflict, and laying the foundation for sustainable peace and development. The UN peace building architecture comprises the Peace building Commission, the Peace building Fund, and the Peace building Support Office. Since the birth of the United Nations, the goals of multilateral disarmament and arms limitation have been central to the Organization’s efforts to maintain international peace and security. These goals range from reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, destroying chemical weapons, and strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons, to halting the proliferation of landmines, small arms, and light weapons. Through global efforts, several multilateral treaties and instruments have been established with the aim of regulating, restricting, or eliminating certain weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) came into force in 1970, the Biological Weapons Convention in 1975, the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997 and the Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention in 1999. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted in 1996; however, it has not yet entered into force. There is also the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and the Arms Trade Treaty. The Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons entered into force in 2021 and held its first Meeting of States Parties in June 2022 in Vienna. Young people are essential actors of peace. Sustainable development and peace cannot be achieved without their active contribution. In conflict areas, youth often have invaluable knowledge about their communities and can drive remarkable change. For youth to actively contribute to building peace within their communities, their needs must be addressed, their voices amplified, and their engagement advanced. UN Peacekeeping has long recognized the importance of engaging with youth as an essential demographic in most host countries, as well as to welcome them within operations as civilian, police and military peacekeepers. UN peacekeepers under 30 are often able to better connect with and serve as role models to young members of the local populations. They help to increase innovation and overall performance in UN peace operations. The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the organ with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Outlining its structure and function is an essential first step for determining its success. It consists of 15 members, 5 of which are permanent and have veto power (the P5), namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France. These were considered the main military powers when the UN was founded and their veto right would prevent them from going to war against each other, while creating a necessary balance when taking decisions on security issues that would be collectively enforced (Goodrich 1965: 430). This illustrates how the constellation itself was based on peace and security considerations, and there has in fact never been a direct physical war between the P5 since the UN’s beginning. Despite a period of inaction during the Cold War, many UNSC resolutions have also been passed to support peace processes, solve disputes, respond to illegitimate uses of force, and enforce sanctions in situations where peace and security has been threatened. This involvement ranges from Bosnia in 1993 to Afghanistan in 2001 to its Anti-Piracy resolution in 2008 (Mingst and Karns 2011: 108). UNSC resolutions have been central for tackling conflict situations and have also demonstrated that extensive joint action can be taken to respond to crisis, such as in the case of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990 where it condemned its action and authorized states to “use all necessary means” to stop the occupation (Mingst and Karns 2011: 105). Such examples would challenge the realist assumption that there is an inherent collective action problem in international relations and the system of anarchy. Nevertheless, the UNSC has attracted vast criticism for upholding procedures that impede robust action in important situations where international law has been violated but the P5 disagree, such as in Syria (Nadin 2017), as well as for keeping an outdated permanent membership and for being undemocratic (Weiss & Kuele 2014). In the mentioned example of Iraq 1990, the agreed resolution authorized a US-led military operation, but UN oversight was weak and the autonomy of US action as well as the lack of inclusion of supportive states outside of the Council in the decision-making process is one example that points to the undemocratic structure of the Council as well as the continued importance of powerful states during interventions, rather than the UN itself (Ebegbulem 2011: 25). Furthermore, Security Council vetoes have not always managed to stop nations from proceeding with their endeavours, which was the case with the US’ invasion of Iraq, 2003 (Morris & Wheeler 2007: 221). This shows that the individual interests of some states make them deviate from institutional constraints, pointing to flaws in the theory of liberal institutionalism that laid the basis for the UN. Such examples spark doubt about the credibility of the UN and UNSC and disrupt the balance that the composition of UNSC is to uphold, which is one important obstacle to its success in maintaining peace and security. Beyond internal tensions, the UN has an active presence in the world through peace operations, which has become central for the UNSC and its approach to maintaining peace. The mandates range from protecting civilians to supporting state-building efforts, a list that has become more extensive in its attempt to improve the strategy towards sustainable peace. There is no mention of peace operations in the UN Charter, and the concept of peacekeeping has adapted in line with shifting nature of war and understanding of security, leading up to today’s multidimensional peace operations (Williams & Bellamy 2013: 415). Traditionally, the presence of UN forces was to be approved by all parties in the host country, they were to be impartial, lightly armed, with the main goal to maintain a truce. The peace has indeed been kept between states such as Israel-Syria or Iraq-Kuwait, indicating the success of UN deployment for preventing interstate conflict (Mingst and Karns 2011: 130). With the increase of intrastate wars in the 1990s however, conflicts had become more complex, requiring a more complex response. Peacekeepers were deployed in situations where there was no peace to keep, and they encountered atrocities that put both them and civilians in danger, demanding greater military response (Bellamy & Hunt 2015: 1277, Doyle & Sambanis 2008: 2). Their mandate therefore expanded and started bordering on enforcement, as was the case of Bosnia in the 1990s. One problem was the discrepancy between the expectations of the operations and the actual capabilities in form of manpower or resources, showing a political unwillingness to transform the operations to more robust ones (Thakur 2006: 62, Autesserre 2019). Bosnia was a clear example of the failure that can ensue when undertaking ad hoc responses to a situation that does not match the original mandate, as it might lead to the inability to perform the envisioned tasks entrusted upon peacekeepers as they are prevented by nation state reluctance (Crossette 1999). This shows the importance of broad member state support of missions in today’s complex conflict situations and the need for nations to be willing to adapt to challenges that might arise. Underlying UN peace operations is the ideal of a liberal democratic peace, which has been a further hindrance to success in some contexts. Afghanistan is a telling example, where democratization, rule of law and economic restructuring was promoted (Saikal 2012: 219), showing a disregard for every state’s right to “choose its political, economic, social and cultural system” (UN Declaration 1965). The state-building efforts saw the quick establishment of governance structures based on Western ideals. It was a rushed affair that eventually failed as the government was neither representative nor accountable (Saikal 2012: 226). Postcolonialism offers a valid critique of the ideational dominance of Western values and understandings, and its failure to recognize imperialist tendencies in the vision that liberal peace is universally applicable and desirable (Nair 2017). Imposing structures in a top-down fashion can have important consequences in fragile situations where society is multidimensional. The conception of peace should not be equated with liberalism but rather promoted in a balanced effort through combined considerations for basic democratic principles with local understandings of governance. This is called hybrid peace building by authors such as Richmond (2009: 578). Only then will the UN enable long-term success as it would empower the local community through an inclusive bottom-up approach.
III.VII BEYOND PEACEKEEPING – RECOGNIZING THE NORMATIVE POWER OF THE UN:
The active presence of the UN in the world through its different missions has resolved disputes, inhibited escalation of conflict and spurred peace in some situations, but the inherent problems that were highlighted continue to attract criticism. The failure of the UN to foster long-term peace in settings with complex conflict-dynamics shows an important limitation to the claim to success (Sambanis 2008: 29). An alternative area in which its role as a peace and security defender has been more successful, and in my view most successful, is through the spread important norms that have ranged from expanding the security agenda to upholding a nuclear taboo. A telling example is the role of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As authors such as Scott Sagan argue, norms embedded in the NPT shape “states’ identities and expectations and even powerful actors [become] constrained by the norms they [have] created” (Sagan 1997: 76). The NPT regime helped establish shared understandings of what was considered prestigious, legitimate or delegitimate and states thereby chose to disarm rather than be classified as rogue nations by the international community (Sagan 1997: 80). It has also constrained both Russia and the US in their attempts to modernize their arsenals. Even in cases where the norm has been contested, such as when US recognized India as a nuclear weapons state, it never seriously challenged the core assumptions of the nuclear non-proliferation norm (Carranza 2019: 14). Critics would disagree and argue that the accomplishments in the area of nuclear disarmament have been weak, as with collective security (MacKenzie 2015: 489), but the UN’s efforts have evidently hindered armament and possible escalation, pointing to a major success for maintaining peace and security in the world.
Beyond nuclear disarmament, there is also the shared understanding of illegitimate and legitimate uses of force. The UNSC holds strong authority in this realm, which again points to the normative power of the UN in its role for maintaining international peace and security (Mingst and Karns 2011: 100). Even though tensions can run high between states in the Security Council, this shared understanding has enhanced the risks that an aggressor might face when “breaking” these norms, as the response from the international community can take the form of international condemnation, coordinated sanctions or even humanitarian intervention. This last point particularly derives from the enhanced focus on human rights and human security within the UN, as well as the shifting nature of war after the Cold War (Bellamy 2013: 488). The principles of sovereignty and non-interference came into question with the atrocities committed during intrastate conflicts such as in Rwanda and Bosnia. The “responsibility to protect” principle (R2P) was thereby born during the 2005 World Summit, which came to mean that all states have a responsibility to protect civilians from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity (UN 2020b). In cases where a state couldn’t or wouldn’t fulfil this function, humanitarian intervention by the international community would be legitimate. This is in line with the human security agenda that was promoted by the UN in the 1990s, as the security of individuals was to be prioritized over the protection of the state (Hampson 2013: 279). While it contradicts the thesis of realism with its focus on self-interested states, there have been debates on this new role for the UN and how successful it has been to use force to support human security objectives (Hampson 2013: 286). One main criticism is about the questions of interpretation. Who dictates when this responsibility is to be invoked? There have also been instances where unlawful intervention has been done in the name of R2P, such as in the case of Russia’s intervention in Georgia where they claimed to protect Russian citizens (Allison 2009: 178). However, the jointly accepted humanitarian intervention in Libya 2011 based on the R2P norm is an important example that illustrates how normative shifts driven by the UN can bring nations together to protect peace and security in the world. Both China and Russia agreed to humanitarian intervention, despite their traditional opposition to it, which stopped Qaddafi from proceeding with possible crimes against humanity (Bellamy 2013: 500). Beyond operational successes, the fact that the international community has agreed to legitimize action to protect human beings as such rather than states, and that there is a general understanding that states should not stand idly by while atrocities are committed, remain two key achievements for the UN in the realm of peace and security[4].
IV. CONCLUSION:
Nowadays many international or regional organizations are involved in peace-making, peace-enforcing, and peacekeeping activities: United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, African Union, European Union, etc. In fact, they send multinational forces to the various conflict areas. While the expression ‘collective security’ does not occur in the United Nations Charter, it is often used to refer to the system for the maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter and the corresponding provisions of regional organizations. According to the UN Charter the United Nations have the primary responsibility to maintain international peace. The international community employs a variety of conflict prevention tools that target structural causes of conflict, conduct early warnings and assessments of emerging conflicts, promote cooperative measures such as mediation and dispute resolution, and act coercively. And yet, the multilateral tools currently available to reduce political instability and the likelihood of armed conflict within states are generally underdeveloped, uncoordinated, and deprived of the political authority necessary for effective application. For instance, there is currently no UN mechanism exclusively charged with aggregating, analysing, prioritizing, and integrating early-warning reports of budding conflicts. Maintaining international peace and security: this is prime purpose of the United Nations (UN). Founded after the Second World War as a collective security system, the UN pursued this ambitious aim from the outset.
Cite this article as:
Mohan Kumar N, “A Study on Achievements and Peace maintaining of United Nations in Modern Era”, Vol.5 & Issue 4, Law Audience Journal (e-ISSN: 2581-6705), Pages 05 to 17 (26th Jan 2024), available at https://www.lawaudience.com/a-study-on-achievements-and-peace-maintaining-of-united-nations-in-modern-era/.
Footnotes & References:
[1] Dr. S.K.Kappor, Public International Law, 12th Ed, Allahabad agency, Lucknow, 2002, pg.296
[2] M.P.Tandon, Public International Law, 16th Ed, 2010, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, pg. 365
[3] Dr. S.K.Kappor, Public International Law, 12th Ed, Allahabad agency, Lucknow, 2002, pg.305
[4] M.P.Tandon, Public International Law, 16th Ed, 2010, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, pg. 359
