Introduction
The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 with the primary aim of maintaining international peace and security. Two of its key organs, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), play central roles in this mission. The UNSC is tasked with addressing threats to peace through resolutions and interventions, while the ICJ provides legal resolutions to disputes between states. However, their effectiveness in the 21st century remains a subject of debate. This essay examines the extent to which the UNSC and ICJ have upheld international peace and security, using recent examples to illustrate their impact. It also evaluates their actions through the lenses of Realist and Liberal schools of international relations, which offer contrasting perspectives on state behaviour and global cooperation. Ultimately, this analysis will reveal both the achievements and limitations of these institutions in a complex geopolitical landscape.
Roles of the United Nations Security Council and International Court of Justice
The UNSC, as outlined in the UN Charter, holds primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Comprising 15 members, including five permanent members (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) with veto power, the UNSC can authorise sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and military interventions (United Nations, 1945). Its decisions are binding, giving it significant authority to influence state behaviour. However, the veto power of permanent members often leads to political gridlock, limiting its responsiveness to crises.
Conversely, the ICJ, also established under the UN Charter, serves as the principal judicial organ of the UN, resolving legal disputes between states and providing advisory opinions on international law. Based in The Hague, the ICJ aims to promote peaceful settlement through judicial means (International Court of Justice, 2023). Unlike the UNSC, its rulings are not enforceable unless states consent to jurisdiction, which often constrains its impact. Together, these institutions represent complementary approaches—political and legal—to achieving global stability, though their effectiveness varies significantly.
Recent Actions and Effectiveness of the UNSC and ICJ
The UNSC’s actions in the 21st century reveal a mixed record in upholding peace. A notable example is its response to the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. Despite widespread atrocities, including chemical weapon use, the UNSC struggled to act decisively due to vetoes by Russia and China, key allies of the Syrian government. Resolutions proposing interventions or sanctions were repeatedly blocked, highlighting how national interests can undermine collective security (BBC News, 2017). However, the UNSC did authorise humanitarian aid deliveries through cross-border operations, offering limited relief (United Nations Security Council, 2020). This illustrates both its potential to act and the severe constraints imposed by geopolitical rivalries.
Similarly, the ICJ’s contributions to peace have been significant yet limited. A prominent case is the 2020 ruling on The Gambia v. Myanmar, addressing alleged genocide against the Rohingya minority. The ICJ issued provisional measures ordering Myanmar to protect the Rohingya and prevent further harm, a decision seen as a step towards accountability (International Court of Justice, 2020). However, enforcement remains a challenge, as Myanmar has shown limited compliance, underscoring the ICJ’s dependence on state cooperation. These examples suggest that while both institutions possess mechanisms to promote peace, their practical impact is often curtailed by political and structural barriers.
Realist and Liberal Perspectives on State Actions
To evaluate the actions of states within the UNSC and ICJ, it is useful to consider the Realist and Liberal schools of international relations. Realism posits that states are rational actors driven by national interest and power maximisation in an anarchic international system (Morgenthau, 1948). From this perspective, the UNSC’s failures, such as in Syria, reflect states prioritising strategic alliances over collective security. Russia’s vetoes, for instance, arguably protect its geopolitical interests in the Middle East rather than uphold universal peace. Similarly, Realism explains the ICJ’s limited impact, as states like Myanmar may reject rulings that conflict with domestic priorities, viewing international law as secondary to sovereignty.
In contrast, Liberalism emphasises cooperation, international institutions, and shared values as drivers of peace (Keohane, 1989). Liberals argue that bodies like the UNSC and ICJ embody the potential for collective action to address global challenges. The UNSC’s humanitarian efforts in Syria, though limited, and the ICJ’s ruling on the Rohingya genocide reflect a commitment to norms of human rights and justice. Liberals would contend that, despite setbacks, these institutions foster dialogue and accountability, gradually shaping state behaviour towards greater cooperation. However, the persistent obstacles faced by both organs suggest that Liberal ideals often clash with Realist-driven state interests, creating a tension that undermines effectiveness.
Analysis of Achievements and Limitations
Analysing the broader impact of the UNSC and ICJ, it is evident that both have achieved notable successes in specific contexts. The UNSC’s peacekeeping missions, such as in South Sudan since 2011, have helped mitigate violence and protect civilians, demonstrating its capacity to stabilise fragile regions when consensus is reached (United Nations Security Council, 2023). Likewise, the ICJ has clarified legal principles in cases like the 2019 Ukraine v. Russia dispute over Crimea, contributing to the development of international law, even if enforcement remains elusive (International Court of Justice, 2019). These actions highlight their relevance in addressing complex global issues.
Nevertheless, significant limitations persist. The UNSC’s structure, particularly the veto power, frequently paralyses decision-making on critical issues, as seen in responses to conflicts in Ukraine following Russia’s 2022 invasion. Repeated vetoes by Russia have blocked meaningful action, reinforcing Realist critiques of prioritised national interests (BBC News, 2022). Similarly, the ICJ’s dependence on state consent means its rulings often lack teeth, particularly when powerful states or non-compliant regimes are involved. These shortcomings suggest that while both institutions have frameworks to promote peace, their ability to enforce outcomes is generally constrained by the realities of state sovereignty and power politics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice have played important, albeit limited, roles in upholding international peace and security in the 21st century. The UNSC has demonstrated capacity for action through peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, yet its effectiveness is often undermined by political divisions and veto power, as evidenced in Syria and Ukraine. Similarly, the ICJ has contributed to legal accountability in cases like The Gambia v. Myanmar, but struggles with enforcement due to its reliance on state cooperation. Evaluated through Realist and Liberal lenses, these institutions reflect a tension between national interests and cooperative ideals, with Realist perspectives often explaining their shortcomings more convincingly. Ultimately, while the UNSC and ICJ remain vital to the international system, their impact is curtailed by structural and political barriers, suggesting a need for reform to better address contemporary challenges to global peace.
References
- BBC News. (2017) Syria War: Why the UN Keeps Failing to Act. BBC.
- BBC News. (2022) Ukraine War: Russia Vetoes UN Security Council Resolution. BBC.
- International Court of Justice. (2019) Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). ICJ Reports.
- International Court of Justice. (2020) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). ICJ Reports.
- International Court of Justice. (2023) Statute of the International Court of Justice. United Nations.
- Keohane, R=
References
- Author surname, Initials. (Year) Title of source. Publisher or journal information, URL if applicable.
Robert O. (1989) International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Westview Press.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
- United Nations. (1945) Charter of the United Nations. United Nations.
- United Nations Security Council. (2020) Resolution 2533 (2020): Humanitarian Aid in Syria. United Nations.
- United Nations Security Council. (2023) United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) Report. United Nations.
[Word Count: 1052]
