The United Nations was born in 1945, in the final moments of WW2, as an answer to the atrocities and conflict that erupted between nations. The purpose was to maintain international peace and security by taking effective collective measures by the then 52 member states, and the later expanded number, for the prevention and removal of threats to world peace. It was to be built based on respect for equal rights and self-determination, in a world that needed co-operation to solve the problems it was facing.
The UN Charter was drawn up to champion sovereign equality in a way that does not compromise on security and justice. The United Nations was established with the primary purpose of promoting international cooperation and preventing future conflicts after World War II. Its founders aimed to create a platform for dialogue among nations to resolve disputes peacefully, prevent war, and protect human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN also sought to address global challenges like poverty and inequality by fostering economic and social development and encouraging collaboration on pressing issues such as health and education. Overall, the UN was envisioned as a mechanism for building a more peaceful, just, and cooperative world. All members are to give full assistance in every action. The UN, just like its predecessor, the League of Nations, works toward maintaining peace and security based on collective security. Notable successes include managing peacekeeping missions, such as overseeing Namibia’s transition to independence and stabilizing Liberia after its civil war. The UN’s humanitarian agencies, like the World Food Programme and UNICEF, have provided critical aid during crises in conflict zones like Yemen and South Sudan. Additionally, the World Health Organization successfully eradicated smallpox and coordinated responses to health emergencies like the Ebola outbreak and COVID-19. The UN has also established important human rights norms and played a key role in climate change initiatives, such as the Paris Agreement, demonstrating its capacity to foster international cooperation and address global challenges.
Structure
The United Nations has 6 organs. However, only 2 of the 6 are “main” ones. They are the General Assembly(UNGA) and the Security Council(UNSC). The UNGA is the main deliberative body, sort of like a world forum. All member states are a part of the UNGA. The UNSC is the primary organ responsible for maintaining International peace and security. It comprises 15 members only. 5 members are permanent and have veto powers. They are the USA, UK, USSR, later Russia, France and China. The UNGA elects the other 10 members who have a term of 2 years before new members are elected. These members do not have veto power.
The resolutions that are deemed successful by the UNGA are not binding. In simpler terms, they are mere suggestions. However, they are a representation of world opinion. In the case of the UNSC, even if a majority vote to pass a resolution is achieved, if any permanent member of the UNSC votes for a veto, which is basically a no, the resolution will not come to pass. The UNSC can also authorise the use of sanctions, and force and deploy peacekeeping operations. The resolutions passed by the UNSC are binding. Going against them is similar to breaking the law and any member of the UN that chooses not to follow can be taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is also a part of the UN.
Essentially, The UN is meant to keep peace as much as possible. One would think that the UNGA is the group that passes the binding decisions or has more weight compared to the UNSC since it represents the world’s opinion. However, the UNSC is the one with the actual power with its few members. Hence, in a way, the UNSC can also be deemed as the world government. This, however, puts the world in a dangerous position. The UNSC’s resemblance to a world government puts the world in a potentially dangerous position because its power is concentrated in the hands of its five permanent members. This structure can lead to paralysis in critical global security issues, as any one permanent member can block action that contradicts its national interests, even if there’s broad international support. Additionally, this concentration of power can lead to accusations of bias, as decisions may reflect the interests of these few nations rather than the global community. This limited representation and potential for deadlock can prevent timely and effective responses to crises, leaving global security vulnerable.
The UN is not faulty when it comes to the creation of these different parts of the UN. It ensures efficiency and more thorough decisions to be made on behalf of the UN. The UN’s structure, with specialised bodies like the WHO, IAEA, and ECOSOC, ensures more efficient and thorough decision-making. By assigning specific agencies to handle complex issues—such as health, nuclear safety, and sustainable development—the UN taps into focused expertise, allowing it to respond more effectively. The UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) also serve distinct roles, with the UNSC managing urgent security issues and the UNGA fostering inclusive discussions. This division enables the UN to handle global challenges in a more organised and impactful way. However, the problem arises when considering the members of the UNSC. Specifically the ones with the veto power. Since the UNSC has this set of permanent members that veto a binding resolution, it creates a sense of hierarchy within the “world government”. Or it makes some countries’ states more important than others. Permanent members were needed at the creation of the UN as its predecessor, the League of Nations, lacked key world power member participation at its time as the US did not join and the USSR was not allowed in for a while and Japan together with Germany joined much later and did not spend much time in its membership. Italy left early as well. The lack of participation from several major powers severely hindered the League of Nations’ proper functioning throughout its lifespan. World powers are essential to be included and permanent in this international organisation and in the UN because they bring in their immense wealth, huge armies and worldwide connections which can be very helpful to run a gigantic organisation successfully. That is why it is no mystery that there are world powers in the UNSC.
The veto superpower
Fundamentally, all members will work to protect their self-interest. Regardless of its position in the UN. So it goes without saying that the world powers in the UNSC will only have their interests at the forefront of their votes and not the world’s greater good. So if the majority of the UNSC members have decided to pass a resolution but if any of the permanent members feel that the decision can be threatening to them in any way possible be it economically or politically, they can say no and render the resolution useless. Even if the resolution is essentially for the greater good of the world. This superpower allows the world power to be at the top of the world’s food chain because since these permanent members are world powers and have ‘soft control’ worldwide and have their reach throughout the globe, their actions are undoubtedly in some way part of the many resolutions discussed by the UNSC. And since they have the superpower, they can effectively avoid any resolution that can hurt their interests and continue with their actions while being indifferent towards the majority vote. However, by giving these world powers the ‘veto superpower’ we are damning the chances of the rest of the world to improve and truly achieve peace. This begs the question, are they being given too much power?
After February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, the UNGA passed several resolutions condemning the invasion, but ultimately the UNGA does not have the power to do anything concrete about it. That power rests with the UNSC where Russia, a permanent member with the veto ability, has been vetoing any and all resolutions on Ukraine.
The Veto created a constant paralysis of the UNSC as it often resulted in a deadlocked UNSC that was unable to take effective action when the interests of a great power were involved. This was especially true during the Cold War era when the UNSC was mired in the superpower rivalry. The US and USSR regularly vetoed any resolution that was seen to threaten their interest or benefit the other. Thus the UNSC more often than not failed to resolve conflicts that involved superpower interests like in Vietnam(1955-1975), Hungary(1956) and Czechoslovakia(1968). It could only take action in conflicts whereby the interests of superpowers were not directly threatened. The Council’s inaction often left these countries without international intervention, leading to prolonged violence, widespread displacement, and significant loss of life. This inability to respond where superpower interests conflicted highlighted the limits of the UNSC’s effectiveness, as it was primarily able to take action only in conflicts that did not directly threaten the priorities of its permanent members.
The veto can also be seen as undemocratic. Many member states have also argued that the veto no longer reflects present realities. For example, Climate Change Resolutions, In recent years, attempts to pass UNSC resolutions framing climate change as a security threat were vetoed by Russia and India, despite broad support. This has underscored how vetoes can hinder global action on urgent issues that require a united international response, reflecting the outdated power dynamics established in 1945. Another example would be that since 2011, repeated Russian and Chinese vetoes blocked resolutions aimed at taking action against the Syrian government, despite widespread support from other member states for measures to address human rights abuses. This prevented meaningful international intervention, illustrating how a single nation’s interests can override the majority. It also goes against the overall democratic principles of the UN, as divisions between UN members based on ideology frequently lead to the use of the veto by powers belonging to different blocs, obstructing the UNSC and destroying any democratic decision-making process. Countries from the Global South, as well as smaller and medium-sized member states, are particularly outraged by the veto system’s impact on UN democratic principles. These nations argue that the veto gives disproportionate power to the five permanent members of the UNSC, allowing them to block resolutions based on their interests rather than global consensus. This has led to calls from groups like the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Union for UNSC reform, as they feel that the current structure undermines equitable representation and hinders effective decision-making, especially in matters of global security and humanitarian crises.
The Veto is an outright distraction from the UNSC and the UN’s main aim is to keep the peace. The veto proved to be a hindrance regarding international peace and security.
Outdated structure
Critics argue that the UNSC is anachronistic and not changing with the times and that this hinders its effective functioning in the modern world. The five permanent members are relics of the past. They were chosen based on the balance of power in the world after WW2 but are in some ways not as reflective of the current balance of power in the world today. The US, China and Russia are still major world powers, but Britain and France are past their prime after having lost their empires after decolonisation in the 1950s and 1960s. It is highly debatable whether they still deserve the permanent member spot as other countries have started to catch up. In today’s world, powers such as Germany, India, Japan probably have more right to their seats than them. Furthermore, having 4 permanent members with veto powers from the western world while none at all from Africa and Latin America is patently unfair and overly favours Western interests. This makes the UNSC have a rigid and outdated structure.
Exclusivity of power
The UNSC is also questionable regarding its exclusivity of power. The UNSC is seen as too much of an exclusive club with only 15 out of 193 countries in the world. Throughout the 20th century, economic and political power was no longer the monopoly of the 5 permanent members. Decolonisation and the subsequent rise of the third world has fundamentally changed the balance of power in the world. Therefore, the UNSC has also been criticised for its lack of representation which reduced the respect and recognition of the other member states in the UN. There have been calls to reform the UNSC via increased representation to reflect new power dynamics and there also have been proposals involving the increase of representation of third world nations and reduction of seats for Britain and France into possibly 1 EU seat. Proponents for such moves claim that it would make the UNSC more relevant to the realities of the current world while the detractors would claim that it might result in the UNSC becoming more unwieldy and ineffective.
Heavily reliant on political will
The UNSC’s actions are heavily dependent upon whether there is political will to do so amongst the member states, especially the great powers. What this means is that the members of the UNSC have to have the will to want to do something about a conflict, otherwise little will get done. Sometimes conflicts which were not seen to be directly relevant to the interests of the great powers were ignored or no action was taken until it was too late. Conversely, conflicts which directly affected the great powers were acted upon quickly if it didn’t get vetoed. For instance, action was taken swiftly by the UNSC in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 because it involved a highly strategic oil-producing region of the world. This concerned all the great powers intimately. Comparatively, other major threats to international peace such as the Rwandan genocide in 1994 or the Somalia civil war in the 1990s garnered substantially less attention from the great powers until things reached a very bad state, by which time, it was arguably too late to avert a major disaster. The lack of political will by member states was often a big reason for the failures of various UN missions.
Not to undermine the achievements,The UN’s structure has facilitated numerous successes, particularly through its specialised agencies. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) led the successful eradication of smallpox and coordinated the global COVID-19 response. UN peacekeeping missions, managed by the Department of Peace Operations, have stabilised post-conflict countries like Namibia and Liberia. Additionally, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) helped establish the Montreal Protocol to combat ozone depletion, while the UN Human Rights Council promotes accountability for human rights abuses. These focused bodies enable the UN to effectively address diverse global challenges and foster international cooperation. However, to truly improve its operations, several key solutions can be implemented. the Security Council by expanding its permanent membership to include underrepresented regions and limiting veto power would enhance global representation and prevent deadlock. Strengthening accountability mechanisms for member states can improve compliance with international laws, while better coordination among UN agencies would lead to more unified responses to global challenges. Additionally, increasing funding from member states based on their economic capacities and promoting civil society engagement in decision-making can enhance the UN’s relevance and responsiveness. These measures can significantly improve the UN’s effectiveness in fulfilling its mission of promoting peace and development.
