The United Nations: Built for World Peace?

The United Nations: Built for World Peace? Arron Umberger POSC-405 Dr. Colin Cavell April 25, 2015  Throughout the history of the civilized world, nation states have often been faced with challenges that prove to be impossible to overcome on their own. As single actors in a global affair, states are sometimes rendered all but powerless when forced to handle significant economic and political issues alone. Over the course of time, state governments have pursued numerous means of facing global issues side-by-side with other states, either through economic policy or through the formation of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). In the middle of the 20th century, just as the dust began to settle after World War II, one such intergovernmental organization was created: The United Nations (UN). After previous attempts to create an effective global conglomerate organization had proven less than stable, the UN was created out of a desperate need for international cooperation in a world torn by the wrath of war. The UN would prove to be a powerful and much needed entity in world politics and to this day it has managed to maintain unprecedented relevance on the global stage. Prior to the formation of the United Nations, another intergovernmental organization had originally been conceived to combat global issues. The League of Nations, as it was called, was founded in 1920 during the Paris Peace Conference which followed World War I. The main goal of the League was to achieve world peace, something it would work toward primarily through collective security and negotiations with other states (Avalon Project, 1924/2008). While the aspirations of the League were high, it struggled to reach its idealist goals. The League did not have any military strength to aid in the enforcement of its policies because the armies of its member nations were the only combatant forces it could potentially use, but the respective nations behind those forces were weary to use them against each other. There were also numerous issues with the League’s plans for disarmament among its members, an act that the states involved did not perceive as being totally necessary or even logical Given the primary objective of collective security within the League, it made little sense for Member States to give up the only line of forceful defense they would have in the event that they were aggressed upon by another state.. In addition to these problems remains the fact that there were just too many states that had no representation within the League. Many countries never joined, including the United States, which proved to be even more detrimental to the once hopeful organization. By the 1930’s, only a little more than a decade after its conception, the League was already headed toward collapse. Its incapacity to exert any real power over its members was killing the organization from the inside out (“The League of Nations”, n.d.). There was little hope for the League at this point, as its influence and power had become negligible. As World War II began, it became obvious that the League of Nations was falling abysmally short of achieving its primary goal of world peace. The Axis and Allied powers fought vehemently against one another in a war the likes of which had never been seen before. Improvements in technology and advanced weaponry proved to make this the most destructive war in the annals of history. Millions had died, soldiers and civilians alike, and by the end of the war there was no country on Earth that had not in some way been effected by the onslaught. It was apparent that the League, which had quite pathetically failed to provide world peace, had to be replaced. As World War II began, the United States, Great Britain, and Russia – having already predicted the utter downfall of the League – initiated efforts to conceive a new international organization (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 152). In 1942, 26 representatives from across the globe, led by the four major allied nations, met to sign the Atlantic Charter, an adoption of post-war policy that they hoped would drastically aid in restoration efforts and support general improvement in global affairs once the war had ended. After adoption of the Atlantic Charter, President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill improved upon the charter’s policies and drafted the Declaration of United Nations Before the official founding of the UN, the term “United Nations” was used to describe the Allied countries who stood against the Axis powers during WWII. (Formerand, 2014). By 1942, 26 additional governments had signed the Declaration. Moving onward toward a new IGO, the Big Four – the U.S., U.K., Soviet Union, and China – held conferences in 1944 and 1945 to “draft the charter of a postwar international organization based on the principle of collective security” (U.S. Dept. of State, n.d.). On October 24, 1945, the United Nations was born. The UN was crafted to succeed where the League before it had failed. By analyzing the faults of the League and learning from its mistakes, the founders of the UN were able to establish an organization that was both stable and effective. The Charter of the UN gives the organization its power and structure, both of which are based on a key set of underlying principles. Jacques Formerand (2014), writer for Encyclopædia Britannica, summarizes the principles listed in Article 2 of the UN Charter thusly: The UN is based on the sovereign equality of its members; disputes are to be settled by peaceful means; members are to refrain from the threat or use of force in contravention of the purposes of the UN; each member must assist the organization in any enforcement actions it takes under the Charter; and states that are not members of the organization are required to act in accordance with these principles insofar as it is necessary to maintain international peace and security. It is this set of core principles which drives the very machine of the organization as it strives to maintain world peace via collective security. These principles also serve as a foundation upon which the UN can logically formulate its organizational structure in such a way as to promote efficiency in realizing its ambitions. The structure of the UN is certainly one of the IGO’s strongest suits as it provides substantial international power through its pursuit of four primary objectives which, according to Kegley & Blanton (2013, p. 152), are: the maintenance of international peace, the development of friendly international relations based on equality, cooperation amongst states when solving problems, and serving as center in which nations can work together to achieve these common goals. In order to run as efficiently and effectively as possible, the structure of the UN is split into a variety of “organs” as decreed by its Charter. The UN Charter (1945) states that the organs, which each have their own purposes and responsibilities, are: (a) General Assembly, (b) Security Council, (c) Economic and Social Council, (d) Trusteeship Council, (e) International Court of Justice, and (f) Secretariat. Like most bureaucratic entities, each organ of the institution has its own distinct set of powers and purposes. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the United Nations, it is important to understand exactly what types of business each of its organs is responsible for handling. The UN General Assembly is the primary body within the organization and it is the only organ within the UN that has a representative from each and every Member State. One could perhaps look at it as the international version of the U.S. Congress (or at least as a House of Representatives); however, as will be noted momentarily, its powers are, relatively, not as great. The General Assembly serves as the deliberative body of the organization, but is also tasked with supervisory and financial functions as well (Mingst, 2014). The responsibilities of the General Assembly are not just limited to these, however, as the body is essentially responsible for handling a number of additional matters as dictated by the Charter. Deliberation within the General Assembly is based on a very simple one country/one vote system where larger questions are ruled by a two-thirds majority and smaller ones by just a simple majority (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 153). Though the General Assembly may appear to be a supreme body within the UN, it is simply not that powerful in and of itself. Though it is true that the Assembly is the largest and most representative of the organs, it is not given the authority to rule absolutely by any means. As a matter of fact, decisions resulting from deliberation within the General Assembly are only given in the form of recommendations, not mandates. Like so many other aspects of the UN, this separation of powers aids in both ensuring a balance of power and promoting equality within the organization. The UN Security Council is perhaps the next most well-known body within the system. It is within this body that the organization’s objective of maintaining world peace is primarily pursued. The Security Council is composed of five permanent members, each representing one of the Great Powers, i.e. – U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China - as well as 10 non-permanent members which serve staggered terms (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 154). One could envision the Security Council as an international law enforcement agency. Whereas other organs of the UN create international law, the Security Council serves as an enforcer that protects the citizens of the world during times of civil unrest and war. The Security Council handles any would-be threats to peace and resolves conflicts through peacekeeping missions and the issuance of cease-fire directives (The United Nations: Overview and UN Structure, 2015). The council is charged with handling grievances from states and aids them in coming up with peaceful solutions to security issues. The Security Council is quite a powerful body within the UN as it is capable of imposing economic sanctions, cutting off states’ communications, and completely severing any and all forms of diplomacy if such actions are deemed necessary (UN Charter art. 41). One unique aspect of the Security Council is its ability to use military force, an ability not shared by the other organs of the UN. If the need should arise, the Council may call upon the armed forces of UN Member States to serve as peacekeepers. The third organ of the United Nations is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This body, which is composed of 54 members elected by the General Assembly, is responsible for the organization and regulation of UN social and economic programs (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 154). The ECOSOC reviews policy and coordinates actions pertaining to social and environmental development. It sets goals and standards for UN involvement in a variety of developmental programs across the globe. It also serves as the backing force behind various humanitarian efforts such as disaster relief and rebuilding of places torn apart by war. In many ways, the ECOSOC is the helping hand of the UN, reaching out to countries in need of support that their own governments cannot provide. The ECOSOC structures its efforts and meetings around an annual cycle, with each year having a different theme and set of particular issues which the body hopes to tackle within the cycle (UN, 2015). For example, the ECOSOC may spend one year focusing on the improvement of potable water systems in underdeveloped states, but use the next year to work on efforts to limit deforestation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial body of the United Nations. The ICJ is seated in the Netherlands and is the only organ of the UN which is not based in New York (ICJ, 2015). As the sole judiciary body within the UN, it is regular practice for the ICJ to offer legal opinions to other branches of the organization. The ICJ, which is also known as the World Court, is responsible for interpreting international law and presiding over litigious cases involving UN Member States. According to the ICJ Statute (UN, 1945), when interpreting international law and finding cases, the ICJ bases its decisions on previous conventions, customs, and generally accepted principles of law. Unlike most courts, however, the ICJ does not observe precedents set by previous cases. That is not to say that previous rulings can have no effect on future court decisions because they may choose to take into consideration past rulings if they want to. One could very well argue that such a practice could potentially result in unjust rulings from the ICJ because it is at the Court’s sole discretion whether or not they take previous decision into consideration. The rule of the ICJ has been generally well-received by both UN members and non-members. Kegley & Blanton (2013, p. 307) claim that “193 states are party to the statute of the court, and 67 have made declarations that they accept the court’s compulsory jurisdiction.” One must note, however, that even though the court appears to have such a wide reach, its powers and jurisdiction are rather limited. The court can only hear cases brought to it by the states involved, a limitation that certainly has an impact on the court’s power over international affairs (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 307). Without having the ability to hear cases that were not brought before it voluntarily by a sovereign state, the court is simply unable to offer its help and/or guidance in a great number of matters. Another organ of the United Nations, the Secretariat, serves as a branched out administrative system. As the name implies, they are greatly responsible for secretarial functions (Kegley & Blanton, 2013, p. 154). The Secretariat is composed of thousands of civil servant workers in multiple offices across the world. It is the duty of these offices to fulfill the duties and objectives laid out by the other organs of the UN. The Secretariat aids in setting the agendas of other UN agencies and also helps them to carry out their respective missions by doing a substantial amount of the actual work involved. The sixth, and final, major organ on the UN is, interestingly enough, essentially defunct as of two decades ago. The Trusteeship Council was initially established as a means of dealing with decolonization. Its primary function was to serve as support to small territories - mainly previous colonies – that were weak and unable to govern themselves. The Trusteeship Council played big brother/big sister to these territories and would ensure that they got the support they needed to establish themselves economically and governmentally. Once the last of these territories, Palau, gained its independence in 1994, the Trusteeship Council went dormant. Though it still technically exists on paper, its few remaining members will only meet if requested to do so by its president, the General Assembly, or Security Council (UN, 2015). Now that a general understanding of the United Nations’ structure has been attained, one may begin to discuss how the separation of the various organs of the institution aid in its effectiveness. The main reason the established structure of the UN works is simply the fact that, like the U.S. government, it is based on a separation of powers. This in itself forces a system of checks and balances upon the UN, ensuring that no one body overpowers any other. Having limitations to each body, as the UN so obviously has, is crucial in maintaining such an order. For example, the General Assembly’s ability to merely issue recommendations rather than establishing cold, hard mandates keeps them from becoming too powerful. Likewise, the Security Council’s ability to veto decisions made by other UN agencies also imposes similar limitations. Though keeping each other in check is of great importance to the different organs of the UN, the structure of the organization also helps to improve efficiency within the institution. The UN, as a bureaucracy, is structured with the intent of enabling each body to build on the weaknesses of others. Thusly, any given branch can extend its support to others in areas where their abilities may limit them. One may compare the UN to the inner workings of a watch, full of gears which interact with one another in just such a way as to ensure it does its job correctly. For example, the General Assembly may make a recommendation to give aid to a struggling country that is facing mass upheaval and government collapse. The Security Council could then see that any necessary military assistance is provided via peacekeeping missions and the ECOSOC may send out supplies or build shelters for refugees. The point is that, like in any other IGO or NGO, the various parts must work together in order to achieve their ultimate goal. Though the bureaucracy of the UN and its various organs may be structured to work in the most efficient way possible, there are certainly those who doubt its functionality and relevance in today’s world. The UN has faced numerous criticisms throughout the years, but in more recent times, the critiques have become substantially severe. One common criticism, and one that seems more than reasonable, is the sheer size of the UN. When one takes into consideration all of the agencies and subsections of the organization, especially those which fall under the umbrella of the Secretariat, it begins to seem as if the UN may be vastly overstaffed. Many critics have pointed out the fact that the duties of many UN agencies overlap and that the entire working model of the organization could be overhauled and streamlined. Swiss Professor Jean-Pierre Lehmann calls the UN, “a terrible disappointment compared to the ideals with which it was established. It serves as a gravy train for a very bloated employment system” (in Saltmarsh, 2011). Cutting back on staffing and placing workers in more meaningful positions would do so much more for the greater good. In addition to a massive, and in many cases unnecessary, workforce, it has become apparent that the UN is spending resources on issues that are trivial and irrelevant to its cause of world peace. For instance, it was reported by The New York Times (Saltmarsh, 2011) that the UN Economic Commission for Europe “published a 44-page report in 2008 offering global norms for the fat thickness and trimming of llama cuts…and recently a glossy 75 page brochure on red and green peppers”. With seeming frivolous spending habits such as this, it is no wonder that many are criticizing the priorities of the UN. Rather than fattening up the budgets of humanitarian relief efforts, the UN seems to be too preoccupied with which types of bell peppers are best. Needless to say, with all of the criticism of the UN has come numerous calls for reform. Such pleas are nothing new, however, as some believe that the UN has been steadily losing control for nearly 20 years now. As Jesse Helms (1996) wrote in Foreign Affairs, “[the UN] bureaucracy is proliferating, its costs are spiraling, and its mission is constantly expanding beyond its mandate -- and beyond its capabilities.” With such criticisms continuing for nearly two decades, it is apparent that something needs to be done and a massive overhaul of the UN seems to be the most promising answer. However, given the size of the organization and the many conflicting interests of all parties involved within it, some say that such a wish is fleeting at best (Saltmarsh, 2011). Placing all of the previous criticisms aside, one may still question the very foundation of the United Nations. The fundamental objectives of the organization were drafted 70 years ago in 1945. Any and everyone knows that the world can undergo almost unfathomable change in such a long period of time. Therefore, whether or not the UN and its aging Charter are still even relevant to today’s world is a more than acceptable question. To answer it, one must simply look at the effectiveness of the UN in tackling more recent, 21st century issues. Unfortunately, the organization’s track record isn’t very impressive. With organs such as the Security Council entering a state of stalemate or gridlock, decisions involving international security cannot be made in a timely fashion, if at all. Such freezes in progress can have horribly detrimental effects, as was seen just a couple of years ago when the UN’s failure to act resulted in the expansion of already widespread destruction in Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was himself quoted in The Guardian (2014), saying that the war in Syria was the UN’s “collective failure.” Additional comments in the same article point to “international paralysis” as a source of “empowerment” for murderers in Syria (Leach, 2014). Many argue that the overlapping duties of many of the agencies, along with a steady increase in conflicting interests among UN members, are primary contributors to failures within the IGO. Also, the UN Charter is full of loopholes which allow stalemates to happen. It allows states that don’t want to cooperate with one another the ability to just have a standoff, which only ends up making matters worse in the long run. Incidents such as this just make the relevance of the UN all the more suspect. Its multilateral structure, which now consists of a plethora of sub-agencies and offices, lacks any form of streamlining and causes a great deal of redundancy and inefficiency (Saltmarsh, 2011). Still, others blame old-fashioned agenda-driven politics for the lack of relevance. This argument poses that the UN Charter is totally irrelevant because those with power in the UN will use it however they see fit anyway. A similar view was shared by Eric Webb as he wrote in The Cheers.org Magazine, “it seems to me that the UN Bureaucracy and it's [sic] other supporters pick and choose what is a ‘crisis’, or what requires force to calm a violent situation.” It is interesting to ponder exactly how much has changed in the world since the conception of the United Nations all those years ago. To set back and think of how this machine of an institution was so carefully engineered in order to promote world peace after previous attempts at such measures had failed. Though the structure is certainly in place for a well-oiled bureaucracy, it seems as if there has been a wrench or two thrown into the gears as of late. Facing economic turmoil, conflicting interests, and a general lack of focus, it is hard to tell if the engine of the UN will ever run smoothly again.  Works Cited Covenant of the League of Nations. 1924/2008. In “The Avalon Project”. Yale Law School. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp Formerand, Jacques. 2014. United Nations. Brittanica.com. Encylopædia Brittanica, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616264/United-Nations-UN Helms, Jesse. 1996. “Saving the U.N.: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General”. Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52425/jesse-helms/saving-the-un-a-challenge-to-the-next-secretary-general International Court of Justice. 2015. The Court. ICJ-CIJ.org. Retrieved from http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 Kegley Jr., C.W. and Blanton, S.L. 2013. World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2013 - 2014 Update Edition, 14th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Leach, Anna. 2014. “Reflecting on ‘collective failure’: is the United Nations still Relevant?. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/oct/17/united-nations-effective-debate-security-council Mingst, Karen. 2014. Principle Organs. In “United Nations”. Brittanica.com. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616264/United-Nations-UN/12402/Principal-organs Saltmarsh, Matthew. 2011. “A Bloated U.N. Bureaucracy Causes Bewilderment”. The New York Times. New York: The New York Times Company. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/europe/06iht-nations06.html?pagewanted=1&src=twrhp The League of Nations. n.d. In “The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project”. George Washington University School of History. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/league-of-nations.cfm The Formation of the United Nations. n.d. In “Milestones; 1937-1945”, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/un The United Nations: Overview and UN Structure. 2015. School of Foreign Service in Qatar Library. Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://guides.sfsq.georgetown.edu/unitednations United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. New York: United Nations, Office for Public Information. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml United Nations (2015). About ECOSOC. UN.org. New York: United Nations, Office for Public Information. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/index.shtml United Nations. 2015. Trusteeship Council. UN.org. New York: United Nations, Office for Public Information. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/mainbodies/trusteeship/ Webb, Eric. 2014. “UN Bureaucracy and its Failures”. The Cheers.org Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.thecheers.org/Opinion/article_574_UN-Bureaucracy-and-its-failures.html Umberger ?