Humanitarian Interventions And Peacekeeping Of The United Nations Security Council

The structure and power of the UN Security Council is a major factor regarding how some states are able to exert power over the UN. For example, any permanent member of the UNSC (China, Russia, the US, Britain or France) can veto any resolution proposed as they please. As a result of this we have seen much needed resolutions been dropped due to permanent members vetoing due to national interests. In the case of the conflict in Syria, both resolutions proposed by the UNSC were vetoed by Russia and China as they went against their national interests. In this way, the permanent five members are certainly more powerful than the UN. Furthermore, states sovereignty imposes limits on the extent to which the UN can protect human rights. States sovereignty can also mean that states can refuse to sign international agreements that are seen as against their national interests. For example, the US’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, the UN does exhibit some power over states. It can authorise the use of force or peacekeepers or economic sanctions against states where internal conflict has occurred. For example, in 2006 the UNSC authorised the use of peacekeeping troops in Sudan in response to the conflict in Darfur. Similarly in 2011, the UNSC authorised the use of force to protect civilians against the attacks of the Gaddafi regime. Conclusively, although the UN has the ability to authorise various

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and is argued to have power to intervene in the most serious issues which disrupt world order.

Thesis: The role of the United Nations has changed from being primarily an international peacekeeping force to primarily a humanitarian organization.

Over the last decade, the idea of the Security Council going under reform has caused much of a debate. Academics have been questioning whether the Security Council has been fulfilling its duties and obligations under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations . Another question, which arises frequently, is whether it is accountable and legitimate. The combinations of these effectively show whether the Security Council is fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

The world has advanced over the centuries. To ensure progression and growth, society must embrace organizations which support improving the quality of human life. The United Nations is one such organization that has ensured the well-being of the human race by collaborating internationally on how to tactically approach conflicts. From combating terrorism to eradicating smallpox, the United Nations has resolved numerous foreign issues and international crises. The creation of the United Nations continues to be critical because the organization is a fundamental necessity for global peace, good relations, and development.

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

The UN Security Council was established in 1946 and currently consists of fifteen members. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are the five permanent members who hold the power to impose a veto on the council 's resolutions under Article 27 of the UN charter. Article 24 of the UN charter establishes the purpose of the UN Security Council, 'the UN member states have conferred the primary responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security to the Security Council '. In this essay, whether or not the UN Security Council is considered to be fit for purpose will depend on whether it is a legitimate institution which maintains international peace and security for all states consistently, and 'to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war '. This essay will consider the opinions of renowned intellectuals such as Ian Hurd who argue that the current membership structure of the UN Security Council constitutes a legitimacy crisis and reform of the UN Security Council 's structure is needed to make it more legitimate, which will result in the Council being more effective for its purpose. In this essay, the criticisms of the legitimacy of the UN Security Council and arguments that the permanent five members are using the veto power for the purposes of their own national interests will be taken into consideration and evidence supporting and criticising the Security Council will be analysed. This essay will conclude that the UN

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an

Following the bloodiest global conflict humankind has ever witnessed, the world’s greatest powers sought to form a global institution which would prevent a future occurrence of this kind. On October 24th of 1945, a month and a half after WWII’s end, that vision came into existence under the establishment of the “United Nations”. Within its mutually established manifesto designed by its 51 founding member states, the UN Charter (which was ratified a few months prior in June at the United Nations Conference on International Organization) solemnly declared the United Nations commitment “to maintain international peace and security… in conformity with the principles of justice and international law” (UN Charter, 1945). The UN would continue to

The discussion of the UN Security Council Reform has been on discussion for almost 20 years. The efficiency and effectiveness of the council are put to question. It is important to act now while the momentum for the push for reform is rising. The Member States need to realize Security Council Reform. The G4 nations support each others bid for seats of the Security Council and Japan has the support of the United States, Britain, France and Russia. The current P5 members of the Security Council, along with the G4 account for 9 of the world's 10 largest defense budgets according to SIPRI. Japan has been elected for nine two-year terms on the Security

Since its establishment, the United Nations has played a vital role in total global development. As stated by the UN, their roles and responsibilities consist of maintaining international peace and security through the prevention of conflict and coming up with solutions if ever in conflicting scenarios through peacekeeping efforts. Their UN Security Council is the primary subsidy for international peace and security; promoting sustainable development by working to bridge social, economic, or cultural disparities, and “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all” (What we do, United Nations); protecting human rights and making such a key aspect and value of the Organization; upholding international law through the usage of courts, multilateral treaties, and tribunals to ensure that international law is being upheld; and to deliver humanitarian aid, which is one of the main principles the UN was founded on: “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” (What we do, United Nations).

One of the major areas of reform must be the Security Council, which has deviated from reflecting the real state of the world and therefore is no longer effectively responsible for the peace and security of the world. Unless the UN can reform in this and other ways outlined by SG Kofi Annan, it will never achieve the lofty goals envisioned by the framers of its Charter, the US will finally forsake it because it will be unable to work in the US’s national interest, and it will sink into the obscurity of history.

First, the Theory of UN Collective Security briefly summarizes why the UN was established after WWII and how it has served the global community as a method to avoid war and conflict through collective security. Collective security is introduced as a principle that allows nation-states to be interconnected in a way that no only prevents war and conflict, but also provides methods that can be

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.