The United Nations: Peace in the 21st Century

The United Nations:
Peace in the 21st Century

By B.E.N.
May 11, 2005


In the Beginning…
The statement, "To 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;" defines the purpose of the United Nations (UN). It is this purpose, along with the vast membership of the body that bestows the solemn responsibility of maintaining and projecting peace through the international system on the UN. But is it up to the challenge of maintaining peace in the 21st century? This essay will show that the UN, per international law, is responsible for global peace, but under the current designs, it is not living up to its obligations.

What’s in a Charter…
There are 191 members to the UN, all of which have signed the UN Charter. The only state to have not joined the UN is the Vatican City, therefore, every nation (with the exception of the Vatican) in the world has become a signatory to the charter; a treaty obligating these states to the provisions stated within. So with the universal acceptance of the UN charter, what does this document state, and how does this impact the institution’s ability to maintain global peace?
As stated earlier, Article 1 Section 1 (Article 1(1)) of the charter states the purpose of the UN- to maintain international peace and security. Article 2(2) states that members "shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter" with Article 2(3) requiring states to solve their differences "by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered," which is amplified by Article 2(4) that calls for the members to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." So all members are required to observe the charter, which further demands that states pursue peaceful means of settling disputes and requires states additionally to refrain from the use of force.

There are few exceptions to the use of force. Article 51 states that, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." But this seems to state that the attack must have either already occurred or is imminent. While this allows force for self-defense, it also states clearly the intention for the UNSC to address the issue if it threatens international peace. Article 24(1) clearly specifies that "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf." Article 25 then cements this role, which states, "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

So thus far it is evident that the UN is responsible for international peace and every state in the world, save one, has acknowledged this role. Furthermore, states have agreed to refrain from the use of force unless it falls specifically within the stated exceptions for such. Moreover, the UNSC has been designated as the institutional organization responsible specifically for the task of maintaining global peace and all states have agreed to accept and carry out the decision of the Council. All of this falls neatly into treaty law, by far the most binding of international law. But has it worked?

A Shaky Track Record…
Since the UN was established in 1945, there have been 74 conflicts with 34 of those falling within the parameters of civil war. Of the twenty most devastating wars of the 20th century, nine of them have occurred following the institution’s creation. Some of the wars have UNSC resolutions addressing them, however most do not. But why the flagrant violation of international law? With few exceptions like the Korean War, which acted under the auspices of the UNSC, the majority of these wars were in direct violation of the agreed UN Charter. Therefore the question remains, is the institution up to the task of maintaining global peace?

The first use of UN Peacekeepers came in 1956 following the Suez Campaign. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was placed along the Egyptian border with Israel and saw relative peace for nearly 10 years, however, the force remained at the will of the Egyptians according to the UN Secretary General (UNSG) U Thant. When the Egyptians asked the UNEF force to withdraw from Al Sabha and Sharm Al Sheikh, U Thant (without consulting with the UNSC or the General Assembly (GA)) informed the Egyptians that it was all or nothing. With that, on May 19 the entire UN peacekeeping force withdrew with war between Israel and Egypt starting on June 5th.

This is obviously a failure on the part of the UN to maintain the peace in the region. First off, per the UN Charter it is the UNSC that controls matters of troops and their insertion or withdrawal; therefore the UNSG over stepped his authority. More to the point, the force was placed there specifically to ensure peace and the UN was obligated by international law, per the UN Charter, to maintain the force for this purpose. Egypt and Israel were also obligated under international law, specifically the UN Charter, to accept and carry out the decisions of the UNSC. The ramifications of this failure are still felt today.

A more recent example of UN peacekeeping is seen in the Bosnia campaign. Bosnia requested the UNSC to supply UN monitors between it and Serbia but the UNSC denied the request citing that there existed "no precedent for preemptive peacekeeping." However, following Serbian attacks on civilians and Bosnian cities that was classified by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as genocide, the UNSC sent in the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR). Unfortunately, this force had a weak mandate that complicated its ability to defend the Bosnian population and eventually had to be supplemented with NATO forces.

This is another failure by the UNSC because per Article 1(1) the UN is required to "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace." The concept of precedent is irrelevant as the Charter specifically mandates the UN, and specifically the UNSC, to prevent hostilities through collective measures. Further complicating the matter, NATO acted to stop the genocide with force and without a mandate from the UNSC. Therefore, NATO states were technically violating the UN Charter as the UN didn’t transfer authority from UNPROFOR to the NATO led force until after the fact in resolution 1031.

Finally, a matter affecting global security and peace is the current situation in North Korea. North Korea signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985. Per the treaty, they could not develop nuclear weapons. However, in October of 2002, North Korea admitted to a secret nuclear weapons program that was in direct violation to a 1994 bilateral agreement between it and the United States as well as the NPT. North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT under Article X of the treaty, which states, "Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." But because North Korea violated the treaty prior to withdrawing from the NPT, it is still in violation of international law and threatens the global peace. Therefore the UNSC should act to prevent and remove this threat to global peace.

However, North Korea has stated that any resolutions from the UNSC concerning its nuclear weapon programs will be taken as an act of war. This is obviously incorrect and is not in accordance with international law as North Korea was a willing party to the NPT when it violated the provisions therein as well as a current member of the UN and is therefore obligated to accept and carry out the decisions of the UNSC per Article 25. If the UN is to fulfill its obligations under the charter, it must act against the threat to global peace that North Korea currently poses. This is yet another test for the UN in its responsibility to the maintenance of international peace.

Validity of the Charter…
In addition to the examples provided thus far, the sheer number of violations to international peace that have occurred since the creation of the UN casts doubt on the validity of certain provisions of the UN Charter. When several states continually violate a treaty over a prolonged period of time, that treaty has been cast into a state of desuetude, or a state of disuse. Therefore, it could be argued that the provisions on the use of force within the UN Charter are no longer valid. This would greatly damage the resolve and capability of the UN to enforce international peace through the UN and its charter.

The Way Ahead…
Obviously, the UN has not only failed live up to its responsibility of maintaining international peace, but its inability to proactively address the many cases of global peace and security have greatly undermined its position to address the subject in general. If the UN is to regain its rightful position of global peacemaker/sustainer, it must address these deficiencies.

First, the UN must enforce its charter against its member states. States found to be in violation of the charter and threatening the peace and security of the international community must be resolutely addressed and not cowed to. If states are unwilling to correct violations, then the UN has several avenues available to it to redress the situation to include: preventative diplomacy and peace making, peace keeping, peace building, disarmament, sanctions and enforcement.

Secondly, the current UNSG has proposed an Agenda for Peace, which outlines a series of changes to the way the UN will address threats to global peace through the avenues mentioned above. A high level panel has also developed a report recommending changes and expanding the UNSC in an effort to make it much more effective.

These changes should be embraced by the UN and its members, for without some change in the current system, the UN is doomed to go the way of the League of Nations in its ability to prevent global conflict. The UN is the sole international body responsible for international peace and security, as specified through the law of treaty. If the UN does not take on this responsibility, there is no other body to replace it and the international community will be once again be back into an age of ‘might makes right.’ The UN must adjust or it will not be able to meet the challenge of maintaining peace in the 21st century.