A largely underutilised political paradigm
Introduction:
At present, political elites around the world do not bother to know, to understand and to follow the principles of the UN Charter. There is no interest in learning from past mistakes, but rather to forget about multilateral action altogether. These are dangerous trends and many countries and millions of people will suffer as a result.
Leaders of big countries believe that they know the way into a better global future, they demand through a variety of threats and arm-twisting or through huge direct investments and exports of military equipment to get smaller countries to adopt their approach. These actions, often considered as Realpolitik, cause the spirit of the UN Charter to be lost, and the provisions of the Charter to be ignored. Many consider the UN a toothless and idealistic organisation. However, the UN stand for an alternative course of action and a different set of policies than those which dominate today.
The goal: Peaceful conflict resolution
Already at the end of WW1 US President Woodrow Wilson thought that conflict resolution through wars should be something of the past. He took the initiative to found the League of Nations, which the USA, however, never joined. A majority in the US Congress believed that this organisation was infringing on national sovereignty. One of his successors, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, always regretted this earlier decision, and when the League of Nations de facto collapsed under Japan’s occupation of Manchuria, Italy’s aggression on Ethiopia, and Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland, he never wavered in his idea of creating an international organisation of peaceful conflict resolution. True to his idea, he took the initiative, even before WW2 had ended, to first convince the leaders of his allies, Winston Churchill, and Josef Stalin, to support his idea, which they quite reluctantly did with great scepticism and reservations. Later the US government invited representatives of 50 countries to convene in April 1945 in San Francisco to formulate a Charter of the United Nations. F.D. Roosevelt had died on 12 April 1945, before the UN were founded, but his successor Harry Truman saw the formulation of the UN Charter through as well as the official opening of the United Nations on 24 October 1945 with Headquarters in New York City; and this time the US Congress agreed, that the USA join the organisation. Many a political compromise had to be struck in the formulation of the Charter provisions, but still, there now was an international organisation committed “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Preamble).1
The Philosophy of the Charter and its Application
In support of realising this goal, the UN Charter picks up on Roosevelt’s conviction that people should live without fear, without want and in freedom. The UN Charter translated this into the commitment by its members “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (Preamble). The assumption was that this would enhance the conditions for maintaining peace and international stability. Thus, the underlying philosophy was dynamic and full of aspirations. The organisation was built with stretch-objectives for an imperfect world. It is noteworthy, that the Charter never speaks of “development”. This is a formulation which came later in the context of decolonialisation. The Charter speaks of international cooperation. The objectives of social progress and a better standard of life united member states, but the objective of “larger freedom”, was controversial right from the beginning and has remained so to this day, as it is often understood to mean “regime change” rather than protection of human rights.
The Charter foresees, that international cooperation is the method of choice to overcome economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian inequalities (Art.1.3). It speaks of tolerance and good neighbourhood of countries (Preamble). It stipulates that “effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace” (Art.1.1) should be employed. The Charter assumes that conflicts exist and will arise, but it demands that member states handle such conflicts and resolve them with peaceful means. Consequently, member states need to be willing to dialogue and to seek a conflict resolution through diplomatic means, negotiation, and arbitration. The biggest challenge in finding a peaceful resolution is to seek and agree on the common interest, and regard it as more important than the particularistic interests of the respective parties. If such common ground is not found, then military conflicts will continue, as we can sadly witness today in the Middle East, in Sudan, in Ukraine and several other countries. Although the UN is to serve as “centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends (Art. 1.4), if such “harmonizing” efforts are not made by the bodies of the UN and the UN secretary-general and UN staff, then member states are left to their violent devices unimpeded.
It is important to note in this context that the burden of finding a peaceful conflict resolution does not lie with the UN organisation, but with the member states. However, the UN management and staff must constantly offer their impartial and neutral services to facilitate the diplomatic efforts by member states (Art.99). The UN staff have a moral, but no executive authority. Executive power rests with the governments of member states. If governments do not adhere to the principles of the UN Charter, then only two options to respond exist. One, through popular demand by the people in the countries concerned, or two, through collective actions by other member states under the authority of the Security Council. The latest session of the Council on the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 1 August 2025 showed how far the Council is away from addressing the violation of the UN Charter by Russia effectively. Only the Slovenian delegate came close to name the real causes of this conflict: The Russian governments changing justifications for this military action. But even this assessment is not sufficient to end this war and the committed crimes.
Seeking a peaceful conflict resolution: sequence of steps
In Chapter VI the Charter provides a sequence of steps to be followed by the Security Council, once a conflict is emerging or has erupted. While the formulation of the provisions puts conflict parties firmly in the driving seat to settle a conflict peacefully, it is the Security Council who has the executive authority to see to it that warring parties agree to a peaceful settlement of their conflict. According to Art.27.3 members of the Security Council who are party to a conflict “shall abstain from voting”. At the same time all decisions by the Council are binding for all member states (Art.25). After Russia’s military aggression on Ukraine, the Ukrainian government immediately informed the Security Council that it will exercise the right of self-defence (Art. 51), but the Security Council failed to act. Ukraine then turned to the General Assembly which in several resolutions condemned the Russian invasion, but GA resolutions are not binding, and both the Security Council and the UN Secretary-General failed in their duties to follow up on these resolutions. Had the Council acted in accordance with Chapter VI, and made recommendations to the Russian and Ukrainian governments to settle their dispute by non-military means, the war might not have lasted as long as it does. Had either side not followed the recommendations, then the Council could have applied provisions of Chapter VII, which includes sanctions (Art.41) and which then must be applied by all member states. Of course, one of the 5 Ps might have vetoed this course of action. This would have opened a debate on how to form an effective response to Russia’s aggression. Besides, this might have qualified as a case, where a veto is not permissible, as the action was necessary to defend the Charter. Clearly this is one of the many provisions in the Charter which need to be altered to give the Security Council more political strength.
All countries, including the USA and the EU, China, India would have to comply with such a decision of the Security Council (Art. 51), which apart from sanctions would also most likely have included diplomatic efforts to end the war.
Who does what?
The question why the sequence of steps was not followed, as in many other past and ongoing conflicts, is not an easy one to answer. In political debates the warning is often voiced that multilateralism is to replace national action. But that is not what the Charter says. The Charter puts the responsibility to maintain peace and security, economic and social development, and the respect for cultural diversity squarely on the shoulders of national governments. The Charter offers an additional layer to facilitate national action, and to join forces in cases where the Charter is violated, and help those who became victims of such illegal action. The Charter does allow individual member states to take the initiative to broker peace, as was recently done in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda by the USA or in the Russia-Ukraine conflict by Türkiye. But multilateral action picks up from there, builds on the agreements and moves forward. After many years of war like in the Eastern Congo, an agreement between two governments and the promise for a lucrative mining deal will not suffice. More needs to be invested in making the society peaceful and the UN should identify what is needed to achieve this. Similarly, the grain deal with Russia did not lead to negotiations on how to end the military confrontation in Ukraine. The UN secretary-general and the Security Council dropped the ball, and thus the war continues with huge losses, suffering and destruction on both sides.
There are many factors which lead to the inability of the UN organisation today to realize effectively its core function, i.e. maintainance of international peace. But lack of knowledge, creativity and courage are among the most important, not necessarily among the UN staff, but among many national leaders. The space in which the UN organisation can operate is limited, but when the right people are mobilised at the right time, the influence can be reaching way beyond this limited space of UN operations. After all, the potential pool for capable people to be found is the largest existing: 193 countries!
During the eight decades of its existence, the UN has provided leadership and inspiration.2It has supported decolonialisation, the improvement of living standards and it has given many people hope for a better future. There have been failures and suboptimal solutions, too, but not these are the problem. The problem is that they crowd out the good results.
The spirit of the Charter demands that all member states debate and eventually agree on common goals. They then may chart their own national way to move towards these common goals, and they can share their knowledge and resources with other countries through international cooperation. The assumption is that the sum-total of all these different approaches and actions will meet the common global goals. We have seen that this can work. Huge progress has been made in the collective pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) until 2015, and we have seen less progress with the successor goals, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), because conservative political leaders in Western countries have withdrawn their support to these agreed global goals. The Covid pandemic did their share of breaking the momentum. But as the UNDP Human Development Report of 2023/24 has shown, the momentum could be regained, if the political will were there!
The current financial and institutional crisis of the UN organisation is a product of these adverse trends. The lack on the side of UN management, particularly in the UN secretariat in New York, to respond diplomatically with neutrality and without hesitation to these trends in a timely fashion has aggravated the crisis from developing to this current existential threat. But there is no need to cry over spilled milk. Attention should be focussed on how to revitalize the UN as a global, multilateral organisation in charge of maintaining international peace and stability. The reform initiative UN80 by the secretary-general has many useful suggestions, but it does not add up to bring about a change among member states to overcome the divide between Realpolitik and the UN Agenda 2030 for global sustainable well-being.
How can we reclaim the UN, its purpose and principles?
Two scenarios appear possible. They would not lead to the same result, and they do not both appear desirable, when considering the intentions and ambitions of the founders of the UN.
Scenario 1: The UN will follow the fate of the League of Nations. Member states will withdraw their support and commitment to the organisation to a point where the UN become redundant in geopolitical affairs. A skeleton of an institutional set up will continue, but without much clout and influence on the politics of member states. Specialised organisations like WHO, FAO, ILO will continue their work, as they serve different constituencies in member states. Even this will mirror what happened in the 1930s/40s. The ILO continued to exist and seamlessly integrated into the emerging UN system after 1945.
Political rivalries may not make the world to slip into a third world war, but many regional and local conflicts will continue or additionally erupt without any adequate response to stop the killing and destruction. Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Haiti show how such a scenario will look like. The Russia-Ukraine conflict may end in a political stalemate, but with Russia having shown that military intervention continues to be a legitimate political action.
Meanwhile the world continues to evolve into a multipolar setting. But the poles in this setting are not hubs in a global network, but regional and economic clusters of countries united in their struggle against dominant powers. They will give their political loyalty, when and where it serves their national interest, but these will not add up to a global response to the challenges at hand. Small countries or civic groups will address their grievances to the international justice system, but this will only show results very slowly, as decisions by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court must ripple through national justice systems, which must pick them up and enforce them.
At the same time, the USA and China will reshape economic globalisation. With its current tariff policies and Belt and Road initiative respectively, they will redirect trade and investment flows. The longer-term effects on the economies of all 193 member states of the UN cannot be predicted at this time. But there will be winners and losers in this fiercely fought competition, and those who win will be richer than before, and those who lose will be poorer.
Scenario 2: While scenario 1 is very likely to play out over the coming years in one way or the other, this second scenario is the one which is desirable, but also most challenging. It will take time, will require skilful diplomatic and sustained efforts. The UN are politically stymied today by the rivalry between the USA and China, and their inability and/or unwillingness to rule in Russia. European countries, which had formed after WW2 a regional organisation of by now 27 states and several more aligned with its policies, remained firmly committed to a European peace architecture, but allied with the USA militarily, while trading with China and Russia. This proved to be an inadequate constellation for global peace. Economic advances in both China and Russia did not make them to allies of the USA or Europe. They wanted and want to play a leading role globally challenging US dominance. While the Cold War ended in 1989, a new global peace architecture and economic order was not built. Largely, because successive US governments, especially when led by the Republican Party, assumed the role of a hegemonial power, forcing other governments to follow their lead or face dire consequences. The UN General Assembly and the Security Council became a victim of this hegemonial attitude and behaviour.3
With hindsight the US war on Iraq in 2003 proved to be a turning point for UN efforts to diffuse tensions between the US and smaller powers, especially in the Middle East, and to broker a non-military settlement. But not only the invasion as such was a violation of the UN Charter, equally important was that the US administration openly lied to the Security Council by producing fake information on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The CIA, which had participated in the UN weapon inspections, knew better, but the powers in Washington did not want to listen.
This case illustrates how vulnerable on the one hand those are who want to uphold the principles of the UN Charter, and to what length those go who give a damn about it. This situation continues until today. Reversing this situation will demand a multitude of steps and demanding continuous diplomatic interaction between the 3 big powers, but also by all other member states.
Activating underutilized provisions of the Charter
Here are some low hanging fruits:
A reform of the Security Council and the ways in which it operates. The Intergovernmental negotiations led by Kuwait and Austria have produced several possible options. It is now up to the member states to initiate a decision process. There are several champions to start such a decision-making process. Even Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil should not drop their initiative, but change it and lead a coalition of member states to agree on a reform, which will strengthen the global representation and thus the authority of the Security Council and its oversight over all member states’ adherence to the UN Charter. The next General Assembly should take the lead on this and develop a road map for such a decision-making process.
A strengthening of the authority of the General Assembly. When a matter is referred to the General Assembly after the Council could not reach an agreement, because a member had cast a veto, then the GA should not only hear explanations from the veto casting delegation, but a subsequent GA resolution should also have binding force.
The election of a new Secretary-General next year, who is firmly committed to a global culture of peace, and prepared to steer a reform process within the UN secretariat to this effect.
A review and calibration of assessed contributions to the UN. To limit undue political influence, it might be advisable to limit the membership contribution by any member state to not be higher than 10 percent of the total budget. It appears too early to introduce that a global tax be levied and fund the UN. But consultation with the IMF how such a scenario might play out, is feasible, in addition to the initiated deliberations on a global taxation convention.
The UN Charter foresees in Art. 109 that after 10 years a general conference should be envisaged, to review the status of UN affairs and make needed adjustments to priority setting, the institutional set up, and operational practices. Such a conference was never held. It is now needed more than ever. Although the fears are that such a conference would not yield any tangible results, it might still set the stage for a reform process to unfold over a 10 year period, with several milestones agreed to be able to gauge progress.
As the USA unilaterally and with little preparations for the day after is retreating from its global policing role4 and is closing military bases in Africa and elsewhere, while at the same time strengthening its military presence around China and Russia, provisions under Art. 26 need urgently to be acted upon. While nuclear disarmament and the banning of landmines were steps in that direction, disarmament action did not add up to what the Charter envisaged, namely a global regulatory system for international arms trading. Furthermore, AI supported arms need urgently to be controlled, if not banned.
The military buildup between the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council and their allies sends a disastrous signal to all other member states, as it makes irreconcilable interests and military action the norm of permissible political activity. In response the UN should promote proactively the strengthening and reactivation of regional economic and security organisations and ensure that all countries can be member of one or the other. Furthermore, agreements under these organisations should be scrutinized by the UN and when considered in line with the UN Charter made to serve as a global norm and standard through a binding decision by the Security Council/General Assembly or an international treaty.
In the economic field the current revision of the global tariff system should serve as a springboard for reviewing and adjusting international economic policies. As valuable as the decisions taken in Sevilla by the Fourth Conference on Development Financing are, they run outside other global economic adjustments. But both need to be integrated and made into a coherent global policy requiring a reform of the Bretton Woods Institution. Any adjustment must be acceptable and applicable to all member states. This will demand judicious choices and compromises, an art which appears to have gone lost in today’s international politics. The next secretary-general should use resources of the secretariat to foster the art of political compromise between and within member states.
Last, but not least, the UN will remain an inter-governmental organisation. But like the work of national governments, there are many non-state actors which shape policies and determine political decisions. UN bodies have increasingly given such non-state actors a voice and have listened to them. This should continue and even be strengthened. In fact, in situations where political leaders cannot find a way to reconcile their disputing interests, the UN should be given the mandate and authority to replace these leaders for a certain period while political negotiations among national leaders continue. The existing Trusteeship Council could be redefined for such oversight over UN operations in failed states.
What next?
Around and on 24 October 2025 there will be many commemorative events reviewing and celebrating the work of the UN over the 80 years it has existed. Its record is mixed. The challenges needing attention and requiring global action are enormous. Peace and security arrangements, human well-being and the protection of planetary resources are not determining today’s geopolitics. The UN is marginalized and can no longer serve as the apex of an international political and diplomatic system, in which the rule of law guides governments, and makes peace the top priority.
The representatives of governments are shaping the work of the UN. It is high time that the popular support for the UN and what it can do is being strengthened through CSO advocacy and programmes of political parties, and through heightened media attention. Irrespective of differences in economic, social, and cultural policies the maintenance of peace and stability needs broad support in member states across political party lines, which is largely lacking today. Yet, it is most likely the easiest to mobilize popular support for peace. But it often evades political leaders, as they seek to preserve their country’s interest, real or imagined, in a world where deal-making, bullying, real or imagined threats to national security, and a blurring of the lines between economic and political power make the purpose of the UN Charter disappear from the political radar screen.
The destructive force of climate change, the likelihood of another pandemic, persistent social and economic inequality are not going away, unless we address them with foresight and coordinated collective action. The UN is not to operate on its own and by itself. It is the organisation which was founded to ensure that all countries have a say in international and global affairs, and their needs are addressed in a combination of national action and international solidarity. To give this underutilized paradigm more weight, the global needs and the role of the UN must be anchored more firmly in the mind and actions of the peoples of this world, so that it will eventually shape the decisions by their national governments. Combining the reform package of UN80, the Pact for the Future and the enforcement of the UN Charter is the challenge at hand.
- A lively record of the San Francisco conference can be found in Stephen Schlesingers excellent book „Act of Creation“, 2003 ↩︎
- see Louis Emmweij, Richard Jolly, and Thomas G. Weiss “Ahead of the Curve? UN Ideas and Global Challenges. ↩︎
- see the painstaking study of US behaviour in UN bodies over the decades by Richard Falk and Hans von Sponeck “Liberating the United Nations. Realism with Hope.” Initially, the UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali and then Kofi Annan courageously held against this US American policy since the early 1990s, but when President Bush jun. decided to invade Iraq in March 2003 on drummed up charges and without any mandate by the Security Council, even Kofi Annan was at the end of his wits. He publicly stated that this invasion violated international law, but there was not much else he did, because member states did not come forward to condemn the US military action, and to give direction how to end the invasion. Although the German government at the time led by a social democratic-green coalition refused to participate in the US led military action in Iraq, they did not turn to the UN and demand an investigation and/or seek other efforts to reverse US policy. ↩︎
- The current US administration efforts to stop new military conflicts through diplomatic measures regrettably do not add up to a global policy of peace-making. Rather they are meant to make the world safe for US investments and trade. But they are also a far cry away from the policy of regime change, other administrations pursued. ↩︎
