By Pratik Mall
The ongoing Ukraine crisis has fueled the raging and perennial debate about the relevance of the UN
The Russia-Ukraine crisis, popularly dubbed the biggest ground war in Europe since World War II, has entered its eighth month without showing signs of ceasing. The cataclysmic turmoil has resulted in one of the fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe and the skyrocketing oil and gas prices, causing economic crises and energy security dilemmas around the globe. The notion of perpetual peace at the heart of the foundations of the United Nations formed with the principal objective of saving the succeeding generations from the scourge of war has brought to fore the perennial questions of the role of the United Nations and its efficacy vis-a-vis its role in the crises as mentioned above.
Flagrant Violations of the UN Charter
When confronted with similar questions, Dag Hammarskjold, second Secretary General of the United Nations, had once vivaciously remarked that the principle of the UN Charter continues to be relevant as long as the member states uphold these principles on the ground. The charter's principles remain, but we, the member states, fail these principles. The Ukraine standoff has once again tarnished the so-called sacrosanct nature of Art. 2(4) of the UN charter, which commits organizations and the member state to refrain in their international affairs from threatening or using force against any state's territorial integrity or political independence. The blatant violation also includes Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter articulating the settlement of disputes by peaceful means considered as part of the Jus Cogen, along with article 2 (4), from which no derogation is permitted. The only two notable exceptions to Article 2 (4) are Article 51, which entails the self-defence clause sanctioning the use of force, and Article 107, about using force against ex-enemy states.
Vladamir Putin's legal justification for Russia's action seems untenable under the rubric of international law. The invocation of Article 51 by Russia is a vivid example of the perversion of international law to justify armed action in a very similar fashion as the west in general and the United States, in particular, has done in the recent past, be it in the case of Kosovo bombing of 1999 or Iraq invasion of 2003. Putin's recognition of the two breakaway factions of Donetsk and Luhansk as sovereign states and his claim that the genocide being committed in these regions by Ukraine's government warranted Russia's armed intervention on humanitarian grounds is not backed by abundant and compelling evidence. The right to collective self-defence exists only for states under international law. Merely recognition by Russia of these two regions does not bestow statehood upon them. On the face of it, Putin's invocation of Article 51 on the grounds of self-defence holds some merit, given imminent threats posed to Russia by NATO inching further closer and prospects of Ukraine joining it. However, this in itself does not constitute sufficient ground for the armed attack as an imminent threat is not a recognized ground under international law.
Russia's insistence on the notions of remedial secession to recognize the secession of Donetsk and Luhansk does not hold water. The idea of remedial secession, as per Russian submission to ICJ in the Kosovo case, is limited to genuinely extreme circumstances involving an outright armed attack by the parent state threatening the very existence of the people in question. Putin's justification for the use of force on the ground that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk also sounds implausible, as even if there was a genocide, neither the Genocide Convention of 1948 nor the UN Charter gives member states the license to use force to remedy acts of genocide or human rights abuses.
Is the UN moribund?
The ongoing Ukraine crisis has fueled the raging and perennial debate about the relevance of the UN. Article 1 of the UN charter mentions maintaining international peace and security as one of the primary purposes and, to that end, entrusts the UN as the torchbearer of the idea of multilateralism. Questions about the Ukraine crisis signaling the death knell of multilateralism and the dawn of a new global order have become grappling issues. Under the UN Charter, maintaining international peace and security is considered an exclusive mandate of the Security Council, which is equipped to be effective but has failed on multiple occasions, including the current one.
The crisis has also brought to light Article 27, Paragraph 3, a provision that has become a dead letter. This clause is not only a source of the veto power of permanent members but also imposes a limitation on this through what has come to be known as the principle of obligatory abstentions. It spells out that a party to the dispute, again a vague term, should abstain from voting in decisions under Chapter VI and Paragraph 3 of Article 52. Thus, it disallows a member to simultaneously be a party, judge and jury. However, in reality, both permanent and non-permanent members have, for all practical purposes, consigned this provision to the dustbins of history, including in the current Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, also suffers from a glaring inefficacy in the current crisis. While, on the one hand, the ICJ certainly has a limited jurisdictional reach under the Genocide Convention of 1948, to which both Russia and Ukraine are parties, on the other hand, it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. In addition, the court's role is severely limited because a great power like Russia, with a super sovereign status, could conveniently ignore its judgement.
UN Still Matters
Notwithstanding the above scathing criticism of the UN, a body like the UN is not only indispensable, but the fact that it has become irrelevant highlights the parochial and ignorant analyses of this centerpiece of global governance. Even in the gloomiest situations, the UN was not entirely missing from action. The Black Sea Grain Agreement is a classic example of its eternal relevance for the greater good of humanity.
The UN brokered the black sea grain initiative through the good offices of UNSG Antonio Guterres, who was present at the deal signing. Signed in Istanbul between Turkey, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the UN in July 2022, the agreement since then has been a landmark success in bringing down the prices of essentials such as food grains, cereals and oil and has helped to stabilize the global food markets. The agreement has drawn attention to chapter VI of the UN Charter pertaining to the Pacific Settlement Of Disputes (Articles 33-38). Described by UNSG as a beacon of hope, a beacon of possibility and a beacon of relief, it bears a unique testimony to the fact that if talks are given a chance, they can yield the most fruitful outcomes regardless of the hostilities. Thus, it would be befitting to say that the UN has not become irrelevant; instead, the obligation is on us to make it work better.
Pratik Mall is a Postgraduate student of Politics With a Specialization In International Studies at the School Of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His area of interest includes analysis of India's Foreign Policy, particularly concerning its immediate neighbourhood in South Asia and extended neighbourhoods of Central Asia and Southeast Asia and the impact of great power rivalry in shaping India's foreign policy.
Comments