The United Nations: An Organization in Need of Reforms

The Broken United Nations

Located just across the road from the United Nations, the world’s preeminent organization for international law and cooperation, there is a structure in Geneva that resembles a massive broken chair. The lost limb is a metaphor for both the UN’s current situation and the devastating force of landmines. Its main supports are broken; one shove would cause the entire structure to collapse, although this wasn’t always the case.

When the United Nations was established in 1945, its goal was to serve as a platform for all countries in order to advance world peace. However, some contend that the United Nations is in dire need of reforms given the ongoing hostilities in many regions. The system is antiquated and utterly obsolete. It takes you back to a bygone age when a select group of nations, led by the United States and a few European states, controlled the whole world.

Many people believe that the UN is fading because it no longer accurately represents the nuanced reality of modern multilateralism. Since the UN lacks the political clout to forge agreements when international law is broken, a growing number of political leaders are skipping the organization’s annual session commencing in September.

Even if the system isn’t flawless and isn’t even operating well, the United Nations is still the backbone of the global community and may be more crucial than ever at a time when nations are breaking apart. One state, one vote is the guiding concept of the UN General Assembly. Though it doesn’t often operate that way, all 193 sovereign member nations are supposedly on an equal footing regardless of size, population, or finances. Due to its intrinsic political nature, the process is vulnerable to conflicting agendas, lobbying, and bargaining.

From the League of Nations to the UN

The first intergovernmental organization was the League of Nations, established in 1920 following the Great War, with the principal goal of fostering international cooperation and averting future hostilities through cooperative security and diplomacy.

The League of Nations did, however, succeed in one area—fostering the notion of an international community—despite its limitations. Over time, the League of Nations lost its allure and eventually proved unsuccessful in avoiding World War II. Human nature has always included conflict, indescribable as it may seem. There was no doubt that military confrontations would continue after two world wars. However, the Second World War was so painful and expensive that there had to be a less terrible way to fight wars.

Thus, the primary principle of the United Nations was to replace warfare with diplomacy. Instead of using force to settle disagreements, nations would engage in discourse. So, in addition to the moral and ethical ramifications, diplomacy was a more useful and less expensive form of aggression. The greatest way to put it was when UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold stated that the United Nations was founded to save people from hell, not to take them to heaven.

After the negotiations in Moscow and Yalta, the allied powers decided to revive the League of Nations in a more expansive form. Thus, the United Nations Charter’s ratification in 1945 created a new platform for the worldwide community. Attending the San Francisco summit, representatives from fifty different nations became members of the new organization. However, once the Soviet Union fell apart and Africa gained independence, the number of member states increased to 193.

The Organs of the UN

In the meantime, the organization’s constitution, which outlines its basic goals, structure, and methods of operation, is contained in the UN Charter, which established the organization. The document also creates the six main UN bodies, which are:

• The Trusteeship Council
• The International Court of Justice
• The General Assembly
• The Security Council
• The Secretariat
• The Council for Economic and Social Affairs.

The General Assembly

The UN’s General Assembly is its fundamental body. All member states, from little nations like Moldova to powerful nations like Russia, are equally represented there. Each state has one vote and a platform to debate a range of issues. The General Assembly’s resolutions, however, are non-compulsory suggestions; therefore, the decisions made by it are not legally enforceable.

The Security Council

A little more serious, the Security Council’s fifteen members are in charge of upholding global security and peace. The council has the power to adopt legally binding decisions on issues pertaining to global security, as well as to impose sanctions and authorize peacekeeping operations. Five members of the Security Council are permanent, but the General Assembly chooses the remaining 10 to serve two-year terms.

The Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, the French Republic, and the Republic of China were among its founding members. Since then, there have been significant changes. The People’s Republic of China currently occupies the seat that belonged to the Republic of China, while the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union in that position. These five countries possess veto power in the Security Council in addition to being the world’s leading nuclear powers.

Regardless of how many other countries support them, they can use their veto power to thwart resolutions and decisions put forth by other UN members. Although they are all equal in principle, they are not in practice. For example, one permanent member has the power to reject a resolution that has the backing of the other four permanent members. 

The cooperation of all five permanent member nations is necessary for the Security Council to operate effectively. That is as unrealistic as it sounds. But the main goal, while the UN Charter was being drafted, was to encourage the world’s superpowers to join the organization. The five permanent members were granted disproportionate power as a result of the veto, which was intended to prevent the major powers from abstaining or leaving the UN if their vital interests were threatened. This is precisely what led to the collapse of the League of Nations before the UN.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Furthermore, the principal judicial body of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice, which is situated in The Hague. It serves as the primary court system for the UN. It is in charge of resolving disputes between nations and offers advisory views on legal matters that the Security Council, General Assembly, and other UN bodies send to it for consideration.

Parties to the dispute must abide by its rulings, but enforcement isn’t always successful because different parties understand the results differently. Additionally, rulings are made by a relative majority, and the UN General Assembly (UNGA) elects the court’s 15 justices for 9-year terms. It’s not simple to operate an organization the size and complexity of the United Nations.

The Secretariat

The Secretariat is the main body in charge of daily administration. Approximately 38,000 individuals are employed by the office, while an additional 112,000 work as contractors in the field. Its chairperson, the secretary-general, is chosen for a five-year term by the UNGA based on the Security Council’s proposal. The secretary-general is the principal spokesperson for the UN. Thus far, there have been nine secretaries-general. The secretary-general at the moment is the Portuguese politician and diplomat, António Guterres.

Though, in theory, the Secretariat is the UN’s executive branch; in reality, it has very little power because of its inability to override the Security Council’s veto mandate. As a result, the secretary-general mostly advances the objectives set by the Economic and Social Council, another important UN body, rather than political and security matters.

The Economic and Social Council

The 54-member Economic and Social Council is in charge of fostering collaboration between governments on economic and social issues. The Economic and Social Council is in charge of several specialized organizations. Among them are the World Bank Group, UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the WHO (World Health Organization), among others. Thirty specialized agencies and affiliated organizations work together to manage a range of global issues.

Every agency has a distinct headquarters. For example, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) oversees agriculture from Rome, the IEA (International Energy Agency) manages nuclear energy from Vienna, and UNESCO oversees science and culture from Paris. Furthermore, the IMF oversees the economy from Washington, while the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) handles the environment from Nairobi. Lastly, the World Health Organization strives to prevent pandemics and advance healthcare from Geneva. While the majority of these organizations function autonomously, they collaborate with the UN in different ways.

The Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council is the last major organ. Its primary purpose was to oversee colonial lands and areas seized from the vanquished nations at the close of World War II. It makes sense that this body is no longer in operation because all of the trust areas have achieved independence or self-governance. The last trust territory was Palao, which gained independence in 1994 and joined the UN as a member state. It’s interesting that the council has disbanded because it indicates that introducing reforms in the United Nations is still feasible, even with regard to its core institutions.

Why Reforms in the United Nations Are Necessary

A vast budget keeps the entire UN together. State contributions are determined based on each nation’s GDP. The biggest donor to the UN is the United States, followed by China, Japan, Germany, Britain, and so forth. Nevertheless, despite several well-meaning initiatives throughout the years, the UN has not fully updated its Charter to reflect the evolving times. The bipolar order during the Cold War gave way to the unipolar and then multipolar orders, but the UN has not changed and is still operating under outdated principles.

The Security Council of the United Nations is typically the first place people consider when considering whether or not the organization is still necessary. Without a doubt, this UN organization has the worst institutional dysfunction. The Security Council can issue legally binding decisions and impose penalties. In the event of a crisis, the council has the ability to employ its renowned blue berets (peacekeepers). The goal of these irregular troops, who were established in 1956, is to preserve or strengthen the peace.

The five veto members were able to agree throughout the Six Day War, the Kuwait War, and the Libyan War. However, the veto is often used to safeguard interstate interests. For instance, France opposed its colonies in Algeria and the Koros, while Britain blocked Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falklands. This practice is still in use today. Anything about Taiwan’s ethnic minorities and Tibet is subject to Chinese veto power.

Even when opposing Russia on its own, the United States frequently vetoes resolutions related to Israel. Russia is the largest skeptic; between 1946 and 2020, the Russians used their veto 148 times, while the Americans used it 86 times. The United Kingdom, China, and France have each exercised their vetoes 30, 19, and 18 times, respectively. At the UN headquarters, the Russian ambassadors are so prone to showing off their veto power that they are referred to as the “net men.”

Today, the five veto powers are separated by insurmountable ideological and political divides. While America, Britain, and France present a front on one side, Russia and China often work together on the other. The Security Council has not responded to Ukraine’s concerns. There are disputes in Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and many other countries due to the veto power held by one or more permanent members. Because of this, the Security Council’s membership, powers, and functions need to be redesigned for it to work effectively and quickly.

Every member of the Security Council, including those with veto power, is defective. It goes back to a period almost eight decades ago when the five countries just so happened to be victorious in a world war. Many find it challenging to support such an extremely exclusive institution, as some of the major players in the world that we know now were not even on the political map when the UN was established. Given that Germany and Japan were on the wrong side of history when the UN was founded, they are not eligible to exercise their veto authority. However, Africa does not have the ability to veto decisions.

If the UN doesn’t make any changes and continues to be disconnected from the modern international order, more powerful nations will choose to forego the Security Council’s consent before taking military action. Both Russia’s actions in Ukraine and America’s earlier actions in Iraq were overt breaches of the UN Charter. Similarly, over the past 20 years, military conflicts, that are unilateral in nature, have gradually returned. This tendency has been made feasible by the Security Council’s dysfunction.

For what it’s worth, the UN leadership is aware that geopolitical conflict undermines its legitimacy and credibility over the long run. The president of the General Assembly made reestablishing trust and rekindling global unity the focus of his 78th session in July 2023. Around the same time, the secretary-general emphasized in his annual report that the United Nations had to change—that it was either reforms or ruptures—because the organization had not been able to keep up with the rapidly changing globe.

Is Change Possible in the UN?

However, because it depends on the desire of the permanent members, many believe that introducing reforms in the United Nations is unachievable. Before improvements can occur, a kind of agreement needs to be reached. Taking into account the current state of global geopolitics, that is unlikely to occur anytime soon, and as a result, the UN is relegated to the status of an antiquated organization incapable of bringing about change or stopping violent wars.

The big countries, in response to the UN’s lack of influence, are fortifying their own regional blocs. While the West has NATO and the EU. Africa has the African Union. China is in charge of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and Russia is the leader of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). As outdated as the UN may be, it nevertheless serves a role since none of these regional blocs are equipped to address global issues like artificial intelligence, pandemics, misinformation, climate change, famines, and refugee crises.

The global South views the UN as a catalyst for sustainable development and economic transformation. Even if the UN cannot end hostilities, it may provide its position as a forum for political discussions and de-escalation if the other nations want. Additionally, the UN provides a forum for professionals and specialists from a wide range of academic fields to collaborate and share ideas. Organizations like the World Health Organization and UNESCO carry out important tasks.

Therefore, even while regional blocs and organizations are emerging, none can take the position of the UN. Actually, in order to advance in the same fields, the international community would need to create a new organization akin to the UN if it were to stop operating. But generally speaking, the United States has shrunk to the size of a political pauper; it can no longer stop wars from breaking out and is now forced to cope with transnational problems like nuclear proliferation, cyber security, human rights, education, and health care.

However, war prevention—which was the UN’s main goal—is no longer an option. In that sense, the company is genuinely out of date. Although the United Nations specialized agencies remain vital, the Security Council has permanently damaged the organization’s authority and credibility. Power politics still have flaws, and this is not going to change. The power hierarchy is ultimately a part of the natural order of things. Those at the bottom of the ladder are constantly gazing up, those in the center are constantly trying to go up the ladder, and those at the top never stop kicking others in the teeth.

---

If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.