Dissolving and reconstituting UN is the only structural alternative

The United Nations Security Council meets on the situation in Ukraine, on September 22, 2022, at United Nations headquarters. [AP]

The United Nations (UN) turned 80 in October last year; a venerable age for the most significant international organisation the world has ever seen. But events of recent years – from Trumpian military action to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – represent major challenges to the UN system.

Many are now asking whether the United Nations has any future at all if it cannot fulfill its first promise of maintaining international peace and security.

Has the UN reached the end of its lifespan?

The organ of the UN that plays the main role maintaining peace and security is the UN Security Council.

Under the rules established by the UN Charter, military action – the use of force – is only lawful if it has been authorised by a resolution from the UN Security Council, or if the state in question is acting in self-defence. Self-defence is governed by strict rules requiring it to be in response to an armed attack (Article 51). Even then, self-defence is lawful only until the Security Council has stepped in to restore international peace and security.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states: Five permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – also known as the P5) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

Resolutions require nine affirmative votes and no veto from any permanent member, giving the P5 decisive control over all action on peace and security. This was set up expressly to prevent the UN from being able to take action against the major powers (the “winners” of the second world war), but also to allow them to act as a balance to each other’s ambitions.

This system only works, however, when the P5 agree to abide by the rules. Could the UN veto system be reformed? As aptly demonstrated by the Russians and Americans in recent years, the veto power can render the Security Council effectively useless, no matter how egregious the breach of international law. For that reason, the veto is often harshly criticised.

The UN Charter imposes no enforceable limits on veto use. Nor is there any possibility of a judicial review of the Security Council at the moment.

And herein lies one of the most significant and deliberate design flaws of the UN system. The charter places the P5 above the law, granting them not only the power to veto collective action, but also the power to veto any attempt at reform.

Reforming the UN Security Council veto is thus theoretically conceivable – Articles 108 and 109 of the charter allow for it – but functionally impossible. Dissolving and reconstituting the UN under a new charter is the only structural alternative.

This, however, would require a level of global collectivism that presently does not exist. One or more of the P5 would likely block any reform or redesign that would see the loss of their veto power.

It does, therefore, appear as though we are witnessing the collapse of the UN-led international peace and security system in real time. The Security Council cannot – by design – intervene when the P5 are the aggressors.

But focusing only on the Security Council risks missing much of what the UN actually does, every day, largely out of sight. Despite its paralysis when it comes to great-power conflict, the UN is not a hollow institution.

The Secretariat, for instance, supports peacekeeping and political missions and helps organise international conferences and negotiations. The Human Rights Council monitors and reports on human rights compliance.

UN-administered agencies coordinate humanitarian relief and deliver life-saving aid. The UN machinery touches on everything from health to human rights to climate and development, performing functions that no single state can replicate alone.

None of this work requires Security Council involvement, but all of it depends on the UN’s institutional infrastructure.

The uncomfortable truth is we have only one real choice at present: A deeply flawed global institution, or none at all.

Juliette is Senior Lecturer in Law, Adelaide University.  Tamsin Associate Professor, Deakin Law School, Deakin University. This article was first published by The Conversation.