Amid war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and growing great-power competiton, the United Nations has come under increasing criticism with many describing the institution as powerless, ineffective and irrelevant. Yet this narrative misunderstands both what the UN is capable of doing and where its successes actually lie. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
I recently sat down with Dr Anthony Lang Jnr, a professor of International Political Theory at the University of St Andrews and a specialist in international organisations, law and ethics. Contrary to the notion of the UN as useless, Dr Lang offered an alternative perspective – perhaps we\u2019re looking at the United Nations the wrong way. Admittedly the UN Security Council faces a profound legitimacy crisis with its credibility jeopardised by some of the five permanent members implicated in violating the principles they are entrusted to uphold. The wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran have cast a long shadow over the UN. Yet, the wider UN system continues to shape global norms, humanitarian responses, and garner international cooperation. The UN now operates as a toolbox for conflict management. Its value lies not in preventing wars, but in containing and managing them, mitigating the negative consequences of war, and establishing rules and institutions through which states navigate the international system.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Legitimacy Problem <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Criticism of the United Nations is not new. Since it\u2019s inception in 1945, many have questioned the representativeness of the Security Council, the privileged position of the permanent five members, and its ability to fulfil its chartered promises. According to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, its original mission was: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;\u201d (1)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Created after the Allied victory of World War II, the institution was designed to prevent the repeating of a brutal and tragic history. No longer would states seek expansionist aims, jeopardise the territorial integrity of another state, or violate newly-founded international law. However, the resurgence of great-power competition, and particularly US Realpolitik, has exposed and intensified the primary structural weakness of the UN: that its legitimacy rests on its ability to secure compliance with international norms and collective decisions. As geopolitical rivalries continue to override multilateral cooperation, the organisation faces perhaps its most significant legitimacy crisis since the end of the Cold War. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the United Nations has endured the continuous fluctuations of tension between the organisation and its member states, adapting to modern political realities. This latest test of its legitimacy should not be interpreted as institutional failure. As Dr Lang points out, in exclusively evaluating the UN on its ability to fulfil its most ambitious objective: Article 1, one risks overlooking the sprawling system comprising other agencies, programmes, peacekeeping operations, and normative frameworks. The UN should not be considered the world\u2019s government responsible for eliminating conflict, but rather a diverse architecture for international governance which manages, mitigates and regulates global challenges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Conflict Management, not Conflict Elimination <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr Anthony Lang argues that whilst the UN is not necessarily capable of eliminating conflict, it has been relatively successful at managing conflicts. In a world where sovereign states retain the capability to pursue war and conflict, the prevention of conflict is unachievable. Rather, the UN should be assessed on whether it has the tools capable of mitigating violence and coordinating international responses which manage the consequences of conflict. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Suez Crisis of 1956 demonstrated both its capabilities and its adaptability. In 1956, nationalist and revolutionary leader of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, a vital trading route largely controlled by the British and French. Viewing the nationalisation as a direct threat to their economic and strategic interests in the region, the colonial powers opted to collaborate with the Israelis. Israel invaded Egypt\u2019s Sinai region and the British and French issued an ultimatum demanding both sides withdraw from the region. When Egypt refused, the British and French launched military operations in Egypt to retake the Canal. Both the US and the Soviet Union opposed the invasion but the UN Security Council was paralysed by the British and French veto powers. As a result, the conflict was referred to the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The UNGA called for: an immediate ceasefire; the withdrawal of foreign troops; and, most vitally, the creation of a neutral peacekeeping force, the UNEF I. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In creating UNEF I, the UN demonstrated both its ability to bypass the power of the permanent five members and created modern peacekeeping which would become an indispensable tool of conflict management. The move marked the final decline of British and French imperial power and reinforced that multilateralism would not be dependent on the consensus of the great powers. By mobilising the General Assembly, the UN demonstrated that broader international multilateralism could circumvent Security Council deadlock. While the UN could not prevent great powers from pursuing their interests through conflict, the pragmatism of their collective response de-escalated the conflict and established a framework for maintaining peace. <\/p>\n\n\n\n From Collective Security to Global Norms <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN\u2019s Charter emphasised that collective security was the means by which to prevent another global conflict. Peace could be maintained through international coordination and the use of the UN as a diplomatic forum for negotiation. Yet over its history, the UN has evolved into something far broader and it increasingly functions as a forum for the development of global norms, shaping the expectations of what constitutes legitimate state behaviour across issues ranging from human rights to climate change to gender equality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The end of the Cold War accelerated this transformation. Former Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali argued in his seminal report, An Agenda for Peace<\/em>, that a \u2018negative\u2019 peace – simply an absence of armed conflict – would not produce a sustainable peace (2)<\/a>. He distinguishes between peacekeeping and peace building, which would seek to address the underlying conditions that produce violence. Boutros-Ghali posited that peace should be underhand as the presence of institutions, norms and structures which prevent societies from relapsing into conflict. This conceptual shift expanded the UN\u2019s mission from simply conflict management to shaping global normative values which would allow peaceful societies to emerge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 established principles which fundamentally altered the language of international politics. Institutions like the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights exemplify this normative role. Although criticised for their lack of enforcement, demonstrated by the US withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, it demonstrates that the UN is capable of developing frameworks and structures which encourage the development of more \u2018peaceful\u2019 societies. The UN may not be capable of enforcement, but they have established norms of acceptable conduct and governments have increasingly found themselves under pressure to comply with these norms or are expected to justify, both domestically and internationally, if they do not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN has played a similar role in advancing norms regarding gender equality and minority rights. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform for Action are but to name a few of the UN\u2019s programmes which play a crucial role in agenda-setting with gender equality becoming an increasingly vital aspect of legitimate governance. Through coordinated advocacy and norm-setting, the UN has shaped the boundaries of legitimate state behaviour. The authority of the UN does not lie in its ability to coerce, but in its normative power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The End of the Rules-Based Order?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are many concerns that the liberal rules-based order is dead and buried, with the resurgence of great-power politics taking its place. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, accusations of genocide in Gaza, and concerns over the illegality of the US-Israeli war in Iran has reinforced the arguments that legal norms have lost all authority. Compliance with international law seems few and far between and, if powerful states can violate international law, then can the legitimacy of the rules-based order survive. The second Trump administration has marked a substantive departure from the United States\u2019 traditional role as principal architect and defender of the multilateral order. His withdrawal from the WHO, the Human Rights Council, and UNESCO – labelling it a \u2018woke\u2019 organisation – has raised questions regarding the resilience of the multilateral system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet Dr Lang argues that this narrative overstates the extent of international legal breakdown. International law is largely invisible and only serious violations generate headlines. International law is paradoxical in the sense that its effectiveness comes from routine compliance which is often considered unremarkable. Louis Henkin observes that, \u201calmost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time.\u201d (3) <\/a>The success of international law lies in its ability to facilitate the mundane interactions of modern life. Global trade relies upon countless international legal agreements observed daily by governments and businesses alike. Millions of airline passengers travel safely daily due to compliance with shared aviation regulations. International mail continues to function due to international legal frameworks. International law suffers, therefore, from an invisibility paradox. Its effectiveness is often overlooked and, consequently, perceptions of international law are often shaped by exceptional crises. The more pressing issue therefore lies in the preservation of confidence in the systems that uphold them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The United Nations is undoubtedly struggling from a perceived legitimacy crisis. Its most visible institution, the Security Council, has been paralysed by geopolitical rivalry. The permanent five members have diverged significantly, with some playing a crucial role in undermining the legitimacy of international law through the waging of illegal wars. Yet, exclusively focusing on these failures risks treating the institution as a monolith with a single purpose of eliminating global conflict. Rather, the UN should be considered a sprawling and evolving network of agencies, norms, and governance mechanisms operating across the globe, on the ground, in the air, and across a range of issues. Great-power rivalry and the growing disregard for international law has exposed the core vulnerability of the system; the system relies on people believing in it and supporting it. But if the history of the UN demonstrates anything, it shows the institution can adapt to changing political realities. Seventy years after Suez, the answer remains clear: despite its flaws, the United Nations continues to provide indispensable tools for navigating an increasingly fragmented world.The United Nations may not have delivered a world free from conflict, but it has helped create a world governed by more rules, more cooperation and more avenues for peaceful management than would otherwise exist\u2014and that achievement should not be underestimated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grace Shipp<\/strong> is a researcher and journalist specialising in international relations, conflict, and global governance. She is a Research Intern at the Democratic Security Institute and the host of\u00a0The Geopolitical Review<\/em>, a platform dedicated to exploring contemporary geopolitical challenges through interviews with academics, policymakers, and practitioners. She holds degrees in international relations, politics, and social sciences, and has written on issues including international security, diplomacy, and conflict resolution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Amid war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and growing great-power competiton, the United Nations has come under increasing criticism with many describing the institution as powerless, ineffective and irrelevant. Yet this narrative misunderstands both what the UN is capable of doing and where its successes actually lie.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1383,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publications"],"yoast_head":"\n\n