After the League of Nations’ failure, the second try at making a peace system was the UN’s second institution within only a few decades. Yet, throughout the conflict peace was about to fail once again, as most of the world was divided into two blocs. as a result of the UN’s rigid structure that was supposed to keep up the establishment of the international world order, the protection Council (SC) typically found itself in a stalemate state of affairs, unable to act with efficiency. Indeed, on many occasions, it may be said that the SC had been used as a tool of Brobdingnagian influence. It would, however, be inaccurate to mention that each one of the UN’s actions throughout the conflict were just caused by state leverage. This essay argues that whereas the UN failed to accomplish its final goal of maintaining peace and security throughout the conflict (and still has not done so till today), it had been more productive in fields such as decolonization and human rights. a short general overview of the UN System is given, followed by a additional centered analysis of cases in which the UN was said to have been used as a superpower tool, such as Korea and also the Congo.
This essay acknowledges, however, that not all UN failures throughout the conflict were caused by the East-West division but also by different deep divisions between states, such as between Israel and its neighboring countries. furthermore, it then discusses UN achievements that weren’t stymied by great power influence, like decreasing colonialism, supporting the right to self-determination, serving as a platform for the ‘developing world’ and endorsing human rights.While it some hoped that the UN would be more prosperous than its predecessor, both organizations had challenges in similar problems. both the League of nations and also the UN were engineered upon 2 fundamentally opposed approaches to international relations: the tradition of the ‘Concert of Europe’ and also the ‘Peace Project’ tradition (Brown, Ainley, 2009: 144). consistent with the Concert of Europe, the great Powers were to possess an enormous responsibility and manage and coordinate policies on matters of common concern, therefore maintaining a balance of power among states (ibid: 145). Of course, ‘common interest’ was sometimes interpreted through the lens of the great Powers’ interests (ibid.). The Peace Project, on the other hand, that was significantly influenced by Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace’, rested upon the idea that eventually war may well be made obsolete through the regional and international cooperation of states (ibid.). Hence, the UN was created with liberal visionary intentions primarily to avoid a third destructive world war and preserve world peace and security (Article 1.1), as well as to acknowledge the sovereignty of states and give a voice to each state within the General Assembly (GA). Stalin remarked at Yalta in 1945 that “the main factor was to forestall quarrels in the future of the three great Powers [USA, Britain, and the USSR] and the task, therefore, was to secure their unity for the future” (FRUS, 1955: 666). His view was shared by President Roosevelt (ibid: 667). Thus, from the start the UN additionally reflected a realist great power chain of command, because the main decision-making organ of the UN, the security Council, included only five permanent members: the U.S., the UK, the USSR, France and China (Cassese, 2005: 317). These 5 great Powers in agreement to maintain peace and security for the common good, but especially, of course, when it had been in their own interests. in line with Articles 2.3 and 2.4, states ought to peacefully settle disputes and therefore the use of force is prohibited. underneath Article 39, the SC might elect the utilization of force if there’s a threat to peace, a breach of the same, or an act of aggression (Higgins, 1995: 446). each of the Big-Five received a veto power, that could stop SC decisions from being created. to this date, the liberal and realist elements of the UN System remain one of its greatest paradoxes.
The UN still reflects the era of 1945, as its structure doesn’t simply allow for reform (Luck, 2004: 361).In the Second World War’s aftermath, most of the world soon were separated between two sides, one being the U.S.and the other Soviet influence. Roosevelt’s vision of the security Council as ” the world’s board of directors ” with the responsibility to enforce “the peace against any potential miscreant” collapsed (Kissinger, 1995: 395). each of the 2superpowers focused on conserving order and stability in its own sphere of influence whereas respecting the other’s party (Cassese, 2005: 323). superpower competition primarily surfaced concerning influential spheres in the developing world, as well as in strategic areas, and often led to proxy-war sort conflicts in these regions (ibid.). This competition was, of course, reflected within the SC and therefore the P-5’s veto power would typically serve as a tool to form a stalemate, like in the 1956 suez Crisis, matters in Vietnam from 1946-75, the Sino-Vietnamese conflict in 1979 and Islamic State of Afghanistan from 1979 (Roberts, Kingsbury, 1993: 6).Though, UN’s failure was in its ultimate aim of maintaining peace and security. Most SC action was hampered by the conflict of the great forces. moreover, once they took action, they’d typically abuse the tool and in several cases, they only prolonged the conflict (as in Cyprus, where peacekeepers remain today). nonetheless, the UN wasn’t a complete failure. They created vital progress in alternative fields, excluding that of maintaining peace and also the settling disputes (Cassese, 2005: 323).One of UN’s main successes was decolonization, that was supported by both great powers, so as to diminish the colonial empires’ power and gain additional spheres of influence. In 1960, once decolonization was already way advanced, the GA Affirmed that “all individuals have the right for self-determination” (Dunbabin, 2007: 458). New independent states, of course, strived to affix the UN, as a symbol of their sovereignty and therefore, legitimacy (ibid.). Gradually, the developing countries began to make a majority among the GA. The developing countries then established UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, in hopes of furthering their plea for economic justice with completely different visions from those of the Bretton Woods establishments (Williams, 1994: 179).
With efforts to stay in rule a brand new International Economic Order on behalf of the ‘Third World’ had not verythriving, some would argue that the UN already created this important accomplishment, a platform for developing countries to formulate a coherent system of concepts, acceptive the principle of sovereign equality (Krasner, 1985: 7). Indeed, the UN was conjointly used as a tool by the ‘Third World’ for it to achieve influence. Moreover, they created vast progress legally for human rights through the approval of vital Declarations and Conventions (Cassese, 2005: 323; Felice, 1990: 595). In between, these documents additionally contributed to the process and further development of law. moreover, UN specialized agencies such as UNICEF, UNESCO, and also the World Food Programme were established and achieved abundant in their fields of expertise.To summarize, efficient UN action had in reality hindered by world power conflict that was based on each geopolitical and ideological factors. These conditions triggered many brutal proxy wars, like in Korea, the Congo and Vietnam, that were usually even prolonged by some branches of the great forces. several peacekeeping missions failed or never left. Atrocious genocides like in Cambodia and in Guatemala were never ceased by the UN. instead of acting as a peace system, the SC remained divided throughout the cold war. Hence, ‘Divided States’ might have actually been a more accurate term than ‘United Nations’ (Roberts, Kingsbury, 1993: 10). Yet, the UN wasn’t a complete disaster and beyond question the cold war world was better off with than without it (Weiss, Daws, 2007: 11).
Some improvements in terms of achieving peaceful cooperation were created, largely by simply providing a peaceful platform for international discussion. Throughout the conflict, the UN’s worth engulfed into something that differed from the initially intended, concentrating more on aspects like human rights and self-determination. the same concept remained to this day and perhaps, the chance had already come and gone to rethink the UN’s role. Maintaining world peace and security has thus far proved impossible; on the other hand, it’s attainable to create small steps towards gradually making this world a much better place.