Department of Research, Strategic Studies and International Relations 19-11-2024

The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 with a noble mission: to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, and promote social progress, better living standards, and human rights. However, its institutions, particularly the Security Council (UNSC), reflect the geopolitical realities of a post-World War II order that prioritizes the interests of victorious powers over equitable representation and justice. This study critically examines the structural biases within the UN and international law, using the treatment of Palestine and the broader inequities in global governance as case studies. 

Historical Context of UN Institutions

The current UN framework emerged after World War II, replacing the failed League of Nations. Its foundational structure aimed to prevent another global conflict by institutionalizing the balance of power among major nations. The UNSC granted permanent membership with veto power to five states: the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), the United Kingdom, France, and China. This arrangement:

– Reflected the power dynamics of 1945, privileging the victors of WWII. 

– Excluded large parts of the world, such as Africa, Latin America, and the Arab world, from meaningful decision-making.

This power imbalance has persisted, despite dramatic shifts in global politics. Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa, which now boast significant economic and geopolitical clout, remain outside the UNSC’s permanent membership.

The Double Standards of International Law

The first article highlights a critical issue: the selective application of international law. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a prime example of this inconsistency:

1. Violations by Israel:

   – Israel has been accused of numerous breaches of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention (prohibiting the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territories) and the systematic destruction of Palestinian infrastructure.

   – Despite evidence, international mechanisms like the ICC have failed to hold Israeli leaders accountable, often citing political pressures from powerful states.

2. The Role of the United States:

   – The US consistently uses its UNSC veto to block resolutions critical of Israel. Since 1972, the US has vetoed over 50 such resolutions, shielding Israel from international scrutiny. 

   – This undermines the credibility of the UN as an impartial arbiter of justice.

3. Global Reactions:

   – In contrast, weaker states or non-allied nations face swift action. For instance, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 prompted a rapid and unified international response, including military intervention and sanctions, demonstrating the double standards in the application of international norms.

The Structural Inequities of the UN

The second article draws attention to broader structural flaws in the UN system, particularly the UNSC:

1. Anachronistic Membership:

   – France and the UK, whose global influence has waned, retain permanent seats, while emerging powers like India and Brazil remain excluded. 

   – Germany and Japan, economic giants, also lack permanent representation despite their contributions to the UN budget.

2. Regional Exclusion:

   – Africa, home to 54 nations and over 1.4 billion people, has no permanent representation. Similarly, Latin America, with its rich history and significant economies like Brazil, is entirely excluded. 

   – The absence of Arab representation on the UNSC sidelines a region central to global peace and security concerns.

3. Racial and Colonial Legacies:

   – The continued exclusion of these regions reflects a colonial mindset, where Western powers dominate decision-making at the expense of formerly colonized nations.

The Case for Reform

The call for restructuring international institutions is not new, but the urgency has grown with shifting global power dynamics:

1. Emerging Multipolarity:

   – The rise of China as a global power, the resurgence of Russia, and the growing influence of nations like India and Brazil highlight the inadequacy of the current system. 

   – A multipolar world demands a more inclusive governance framework to prevent conflict and ensure legitimacy.

2. Proposals for UNSC Reform:

   – Expanding permanent membership to include countries from underrepresented regions (e.g., Africa, Latin America, and the Arab world). 

   – Revising or limiting the use of the veto to prevent abuses by powerful states.

3. Strengthening International Law:

   – Establishing mechanisms to enforce accountability without political interference. For instance, reforms in the ICC could include granting it independent enforcement powers. 

   – Promoting the recognition of new legal frameworks to address contemporary issues like settler colonialism and climate justice.

Facts and Statistics

– UNSC Veto Power Usage: Between 1946 and 2023, the UNSC recorded 298 vetoes. The US and Russia/Soviet Union accounted for over 85% of these, often to protect their geopolitical interests. 

– Global Contributions to the UN Budget: The top contributors are the US (22%), China (12%), and Japan (8.5%). Yet, Japan has no permanent seat on the UNSC. 

– Palestinian Displacement: Since 1948, over 7 million Palestinians have been displaced, representing one of the largest and longest-running refugee crises in history.

Conclusion

The UN and its institutions were designed to reflect the realities of a post-World War II world, but they have failed to evolve with changing geopolitical dynamics. The double standards in the application of international law, particularly in cases like Palestine, undermine the legitimacy of the global order. Similarly, the exclusion of emerging powers and regions perpetuates historical injustices. Without significant reform, the UN risks becoming irrelevant in addressing the challenges of the 21st century. 

Recommendations

1. UNSC Expansion: Incorporate permanent seats for Africa, Latin America, and emerging powers like India and Brazil.
2. Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen institutions like the ICC to operate independently of political pressures.
3. Equitable Legal Frameworks: Address gaps in international law to include concepts like settler colonialism and systemic injustices.
4. Inclusive Decision-Making: Enhance the representation of marginalized nations in global governance to ensure legitimacy and fairness.

The future of international cooperation hinges on the willingness of nations to embrace these changes and build a system that truly reflects the principles of equality, justice, and peace.