Is the United Nations Really a Toothless Tiger?
I. INTRODUCTION
Conceived from the horrors of World War II the United Nations (U.N.) is an intergovernmental organisation used as an instrument to face the most relevant global challenges emerging in the international system; with the objectives of achieving peace and security between world powers.[1] Throughout its existence the U.N.’s system has proved to be successful in addressing a number of global issues, accumulating eleven prestigious Nobel Peace Prizes.[2] However, during the last decades, has yet revealed some important deficiencies and weaknesses within its structure, restricting its influence. This has resulted in strong calls for an exhaustive reform.[3] This paper will evaluate the history and role of the U.N.’s commitment to deal with international disputes and its solidarity and effectiveness in amending new contemporary global challenges; in conjunction with its strengths and weaknesses in reference to the U.N.’s functioning of democratic mechanisms and accountability and the effects on its structure, the mechanisms that empower the judgements of the U.N.’s Courts, the U.N.’s dependency on sovereign state members monetary contributions as well as the levels of corruption and abuse within the U.N.’s system. In order to adjudge the global importance of the U.N., the significance of the powers it currently wields internationally and the legitimacy for a reform.
II. HISTORY AND ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The U.N. was established as a replacement for the ineffective League of Nations due to its inability to prevent World War II.[4] The U.N.’s Charter and Statute of the International Courts of Justice (Charter)[5] was enforced in 1945, endowed with more powers aiming to prevent such conflicts to reoccur. It has since been signed and ratified by 193 sovereign states (members), with all its members bound to its articles as a constituent treaty and obligated to prevail its laws over all other treaties. Declaring it the world’s most comprehensive global leadership organization and the primary source of the U.N.’s rights and powers over members. Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the U.N. can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the twenty-first century, such as peace and security, human rights,[6] humanitarian and health emergencies, sustainable development, and more; in order to promote world stability.[7] In order to carry out its functions the U.N. has evolved into a multifaceted organizational structure that consists of agencies, programs and funds in conjunction with six principal organs.[8] These mechanisms combined service U.N.’s duties.
III. CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL CHALLENGES
As the world’s only authentic global organization, the U.N. has become the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and cannot be resolved by any one country acting alone; with over one hundred thousand peacekeeping soldiers (PK) appropriated by its members to assist when required.[9] However, despite the fact that the U.N.’s commitment to deal with international questions has been formally outstanding,[10] nowadays its system reveals some important weaknesses. For instance, new contemporary global challenges are jeopardizing its effectiveness and solidarity; for example, the spread of security threats such as transnational terrorism and illicit arms trade. As statistics have shown that;
“More countries experienced at least one terrorism-related death in 2016 than in any other year since 2001, with 77 countries affected — 11 more than in 2015... 94% of all terrorism-related deaths happened in the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.”[11]
These phenomena have highlighted the limits in the U.N.’s security system to assure peace and international stability. When threats come from non-state actors (which do not represent any political entity or sovereign),[12] it is tough for the U.N. to elaborate an effective plan to hinder them; the U.N. faces notable challenges in its efforts to counter terrorism and the persistence of terrorist threats does not signal ineffectual counterterrorism laws so much as the need to employ additional tools to counter the threat from varying angles. Another deficiency of the U.N.’s security system is its dependency on members to dispatch forces. Initially, its founders planned to build a military structure under the direct control of the Security Council.[13] However, the project failed due to the reluctance of its sovereign states to create a common army;[14] if accomplished, a military structure would have outstanding destructive capacities and control compared to its national armies but would also require a relevant financial commitment from its members. These weaknesses shown in the security system confirm that the U.N.’s conventions are outdated and a reform as well as strengthened cooperation from the sovereign states are required in order to stay impartial, effective and imperative in a world so different from the times when it was founded in 1945.
IV. DEMOCRATIC MECHANISMS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The most powerful organ of the U.N. is the Security Council (SC) as it holds responsibility in assessing threats to the peace and determining what actions should be taken in response to these threats, by means of sanctions, communication disruptions or military actions.[15] Its five permanent members (United States, France, United Kingdom, China and Russia) hold more powers and prerogatives (e.g. the veto power) than its ten non-permanent members who frequently rotate.[16] Due to this set up an increasing concern about the lack of democratic mechanisms and accountability, within U.N.’s functioning and its affect on its structure as a whole [17]. As exampled in a U.N. headquarters enquiry report affirming that the U.N.’s failure to halt the Rwandan Genocide lay within the Security Council (the US and UK in particular) as it stated in its final conclusion that;[18]
“the Council was divided on key issues…on which the Council was split, and the resources required, with both the United States and the United Kingdom requesting more detailed information from the Secretariat on the concept of operations…attempts were made by non-permanent members of the Council to push for stronger action. The opposition to these efforts proved too strong, however. The delay in decision-making by the Security Council was a distressing show of lack of unity in a situation where rapid action was necessary.”[19]
The report reveals that there were serious gaps between the mandate and political realities in Rwanda and between the mandate and the resources dedicated to it. The exploration also leads to the conclusion that the U.N.’s mission had not been planned, deployed or instructed by the SC sufficiently enough to halt the genocide. These biased mechanisms within the SC do not benefit all state members’ best interests and it could be argued that the permanent five members who hold most of the power within the U.N. pursue their own agendas to the detriment of those they claim to represent.
V. MECHANISMS TO EMPOWER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS JUDICIAL SYSTEM
A. The International Court of Justice
The International Courts of Justice, also known as the World Court, is the U.N.’s principal judicial organ. It was authorized to adjust and settle international disputes involving contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions[20] in conformity with justice and International Laws.[21] The ICJ is composed of judges elected by the U.N.’s General Assembly and SC; with all sovereign state members automatically becoming parties to the Court’s statute.[22] However, being a party to the statute does not automatically confer the jurisdiction of the Court over disputes involving those parties as the key principle of the ICJ is that it only has jurisdiction on the basis of consent and mostly provides non-binding advisory solutions. This can be seen when Australia was enmeshed in a dispute with East Timor about the division of oil and natural gas resources in the seabed between both countries.[23] In 2002, Australia notified the ICJ that it no longer accepted its jurisdiction on maritime boundary disputes and in effect will reject any future hearing by East Timor as stated in an agreement.[24]
“In the event of any further delimitation agreement or agreements being concluded between governments exercising sovereign rights with respect to the exploration of the seabed and the exploitation of its natural resources in the area of the Timor Sea, [Australia and Indonesia] shall consult each other with a view to agreeing on such adjustment or adjustments, if any, as may be necessary in those portions of the boundary lines”[25]
Although the ICJ has thus been successful in compelling members to a set of international norms and values, there is an absence of mechanisms to empower the judgement enforceability of the ICJ including the SC’s ability to veto jurisdiction.[26] As a consequence, there are no international governments that could force states to respect and enforce the judgements of the ICJ; as well as members being jealous of their powers and independence, which have prevented any attempt to limit their sovereignty. As a result, no mechanisms to assure the respect of the Court’s decisions have been provided and, nowadays, the implementation of its judgements still rests on the will of the Member States.
B. The International Criminal Court
The ICJ’s limitations led to the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. Independent from ICJ, it was designed by the U.N. to bring justice and prosecute those who are guilty of war crimes against humanity, aiding in the prosecution of Charles Taylor the former president of Liberia for numerous war crimes.[27] However, opposition to the ICC has been provoked due to its exposed limitations. The ICJ is seen as a last resort for many nations, used only when national authorities are unable to prosecute. In addition, the Court is only limited to dealing with cases or crimes that were committed after July 1, 2002; as well as the court only having jurisdiction over crimes committed by citizens in territories which have ratified the treaty. As a result, cases that can be pursued by the ICC have a potential for bias. As evidence of the ICC’s limitations, the Court issued two arrest warrants for Sudan’s President, Omar Al Bashir for his alleged involvement in war crimes and human rights violations between 2003 and 2008, as stated in a pre-trial;
“The first warrant for arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir was issued on 4 March 2009, the second on 12 July 2010. The suspect is still at large…Next steps: Until Omar Al Bashir is arrested and transferred to the seat of the Court in The Hague, the case will remain in the Pre-Trial stage. The ICC does not try individuals unless they are present in the courtroom.”[28]
Due to the ICC’s dependence on cooperation from the Sudanese government, the president remains at large and still in power. Evidently, the ICC’s lack of police forcibility and reliance on members to arrest and seek transfer for defendants to the Court has posed a great problem for the ICC and its members seeking justice as well as prosecutions on non-members limitations. It puts the U.N. in a difficult position as it strongly promotes condemnation against impunity yet cannot administer justice due to its lack of judicial enforcement.
VI. DEPENDENCY ON FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE UNITED NATIONS BUDGET
The U.N. is a complex system of organisations, programs, agencies, funds, and other bodies,[29] with its multibillion-dollar financing for all these multifaceted entities and their activities fully dependent on contributions from obligated members.[30] The U.N.’s fluctuating biennial budget and members’ quantum of contributions towards the U.N.’s budget and peacekeeping operations are assessed,[31] and subsequently approved by the members.[32] The financial assessment affirmed the United States (US) as the main contributor reimbursing 22% of the regular budget. Japan followed by China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom make the top five.[33][34] In 2017, the U.N. was criticised by the US, deeming their disproportionate contributions unfair and successfully negotiating a 285 million dollar reduction from the U.N. 2018- 2019 fiscal year. This manoeuvre was made preliminary to the US’s threat to cut aid from countries that voted against a US decision regarding Israel;[35] with the US Ambassador at the U.N faulting the organisation for its;
"inefficiency and overspending"[36] and that Washington would not let "the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of."… “you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the U.N.’s efficiency while protecting our interests.”[37]
The U.N. is only as strong as the investments from its members are willing to provide, some members may refuse to help finance the U.N. if they feel such resolutions or PK operations are encroaching on their vested interests, this can be seen as a weakness as drastic or instant contribution cuts could potentially bring a detrimental outcome[38]; leaving the power of the U.N. in the hands of the members and more so the five power members.
VII. CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER
Recent years have brought a cascade of scandals to the U.N. as it is susceptible to corruption and abuse due to its opaqueness, diplomatic immunity, unaccountability and its attainability of billions in international currencies. For example, U.N. PK have been accused of exploiting the vulnerability of the people they are sent to protect, committing fundamental betrayals of trust.[39] Since the early 1990’s PK has been implicated in sex scandals with cases reported in ten countries. As well as conducted interviews in 2014 with six children from the Central African Republic who reported sexual abuse by PK forces in exchange for food rations.[40] In addition, a report written by Graça Machal to the U.N. stated that:
"In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution."[41]
With this sort of track record, the U.N. is finding itself unwanted in war zones, not just because of their lack of ability to end the chaos but due to their potential to escalate it. These scandals have demined the U.N.’s credibility with sovereign states losing faith and trust in the organization. In order to uphold its integrity, the U.N. needs to look and not only reforms to restrict corruption within the sovereign states but with the organization as well.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Essentially the U.N. is composed of member states, and thus its existing power is endorsed by its member states. Therefore, the U.N. is a product of the Constructionist theory and its operation is completely based on international consensus. As a result, if all members decided to work together militarily they would collectively wield incredible power. However, the five permanent members who have arbitrary influence over where PKs are deployed, appointment of secretary generals and authority on international military actions has provoked remaining member states to call for a reform in U.N.’s structure and powers stating it anachronistic,[42] biased and no longer as effective. Evidently, in the last two decades, the U.N. has been proven to be suspiciously toothless when dealing with international conflicts; meanwhile, reluctant PK, composed on a reluctant population can cause more problems than they solve. It may be that the U.N. isn’t very powerful in intent but powerful in potential. However, the rule of law and institutional reform cannot start with a "clean slate". Understanding the patterns of past human rights violations and ending impunity for the worst violations are indispensable for successful transformative processes.
IX. REFERENCES
[1] Weiss, T.G. and Daws, S. eds., 2007. The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford University Press, USA, pp.3-4.
[2] The Norwegian Nobel Institute. (2001). United Nations and the Nobel Peace Prize. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/nobel-peace-prize/united-nations-and-nobel-peace-prize/ [Accessed 3 May 2018].
[3] Okhovat, S. (2011). The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform. CPACS Working Paper No. 15/1. [online] Sydney: University of Sydney, pp.24-26. Available at: http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf [Accessed 4 May 2018].
[4] Weiss, p.161.
[5] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945(U.N. Charter), I UNTS XVI, opened for signature 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945.
[6] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, (resolution 217 A), adopted 10 December 1948.
[7] U.N. Charter art 1.
[8] Un.org. (n.d). Main Organs. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/main-organs/ [Accessed 3 May 2018].
[9] United Nations Peacekeeping. (2018). United Nations Peacekeeping. [online] Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en [Accessed 3 May 2018].
[10] Zorthian, J. (2015). 5 United Nations Achievements Worth Celebrating on U.N. Day. [online] Time. Available at: http://time.com/4085757/united-nations-achievements/ [Accessed 8 May 2018].
[11] Brown, D. (2018). Most of the world has seen an increase in terrorism -- but deaths from terror attacks have decreased. [online] Business Insider Australia. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/global-terrorism-terrorism-increased-deaths-from-terrorism-decreased-2017-11?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 3 May 2018].
[12] U.N. Charter art. 93.
[13] U.N. Charter art. 43 and 45.
[14] Telhami, S. (1995). Is a Standing United Nations Army Possible—Or Desirable. Cornell International Law Journal, [online] Volume 28(Issue 3), pp.674-676. Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=cilj [Accessed 8 May 2018].
[15] U.N Charter art 24.
[16] U.N Charter art 23.
[17] United Nations (2016). Updated Security Council Must Reflect Changing Global Reality, Member States Say, as General Assembly Debates Ways to Advance Progress on Reform. GA/11854. [online] New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11854.doc.htm [Accessed 7 May 2018].
[18] Carlson, I., Kupolati, R. and Sung-Joo, H. (1999). Report of the Independent Inquiry into actions of the United Kingdom during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. S/1999/1257. [online] United Nations, p.37. Available at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20S19991257.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2018].
[19] Carlson, I., Kupolati, R. and Sung-Joo, H. (1999).
[20] Merrills, J. (2017). International dispute settlement. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp.116-134.
[21] U.N Charter, art 92.
[22] U.N. Charter, art 93.
[23] Bugalski, N. (2004). Beneath the Sea. Alternative Law Journal, [online] 29(6), pp.289-298. Available at: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/87.html [Accessed 7 Apr. 2018].
[24] Bugalski, N. (2004).
[25] Agreement Between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries 1n the Area of the Timor and Arafura Seas [1972] SPT 1 ('1972 Seabed Agreement') art 3.
[26] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Judgment on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICJ GL No 70, [1984] ICJ Rep 392.
[27] The Prosecutor v Charles Ghanky Taylor SCSL-03-01-A.
[28] The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir ICC-02/05-01/09.
[29] United Nations. (2018). Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and Others. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/funds-programmes-specialized-agencies-and-others/index.html [Accessed 9 May 2018].
[30] U.N Charter art. 19.
[31] The member states are obligated to pay the assessed contributions based on gross national product (GNP), data from external debt and per capita income with a floor of 0.001 percent to ensure that even the poorest countries contribute something.
[32] U.N Charter, ch IV art 17.
[33] Japan contributes the second highest with 9.68%, followed by China (7.921%), Germany (6.389%), France (4.859%) and UK (4.463%) in the top five.
[34] Eighteen members contribute more than 1% to the U.N.’s regular budget and 135 members contribute less than 0.1%. Similarly, the U.N. funds its peacekeeping operations based on a member’s ability to pay.
[35] See speech at the General Assembly: Nikki Haley at UN General Assembly on America embassy in Jerusalem (C-SPAN). (2017). [video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVTQefA77Ys: YouTube.
[36] Perez, C. (2017). Nikki Haley Negotiates 285m Cut in bloated UN budget. [online] Nypost.com. Available at: https://nypost.com/2017/12/25/nikki-haley-negotiates-285m-cut-in-bloated-un-budget/ [Accessed 7 May 2018].
[37] Nytimes.com. (2017). Taking Credit for U.N. Budget Cut, Trump’s Envoy Hints at More to Come. [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/world/americas/trump-united-nations-budget.html [Accessed 9 May 2018].
[38] This has been previously seen when cuts to the World Health Organization (WHO) led to major reductions in their outbreak and emergence response units, elimination of critical staff, and severe scale-backs in disease surveillance. This played a central role in the slowed response to the Ebola crisis, which cost the U.S. nearly $2.4 billion.
[39] Marie Deschamps, M., Jallow, H. and Sooka, Y. (2015). Report of an independent review on sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeeping forces in the Central African Republic. A/71/99. [online] Geneva: United Nations, p.i. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/840749/files/A_71_99-EN.pdf [Accessed 15 Apr. 2018].
[40] Marie Deschamps, M., Jallow, H. and Sooka, Y. (2015) pp.17-20.
[41] Graça Machal, M. (1996). PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - Impact of armed conflict on children. A/51/306. [online] Geneva: United Nations, p.24. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/graca/a51-306_en.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2018].
[42] According to an article in the World Policy Journal, Europe has less than 10 percent of the world’s population, but it has a 40 percent vote inside the permanent five. India, on the other hand, has a population of over 1 billion people. Japan is the second largest contributor to the United Nations. However, neither India nor Japan are inside the Security Council’s permanent five