The United Nations at a Crossroads: Peace, Justice and the Failure of Collective Action

Establishment and objective of UN

The United Nations (UN) is the global international organisation of sovereign independent states and was established on 24 October 1945. The destruction caused by the Second World War compelled the people to establish an international organisation for keeping the world away from war or creating a war like situation in any part of the world and promote friendship and cooperation among all the nations. The UN, as its predecessor organisation League of Nations, was designed to save the future generations from the scourge of war by promoting International peace and security. I would like to illustrate that UN’s predecessor organization was founded with more or less similar objectives, as is of UN’s, in 1920 after the end of WW I with 44 signing members rising to the highest 58 members and by the time of its dissolution in year 1946 only 23 members remained. After the end of the WW II, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union (Former USSR) some other states held several meetings and planned to establish an organisation for preserving peace and promoting social, economic and political co-operation among all nations. As a result of their efforts, the United Nations came into existence in 1945 when the representatives of 51 nations signed the Charter of the UNO at San Francisco. President of US Franklin Roosevelt coded the word United Nations and as a tribute it was unanimously adopted as the name of this new organization. Interestingly, India had not achieved its freedom till then yet it became the founder member of United Nations. The UN charter came into force on 24th October 1945 and since then 24 October is celebrated as United Nations day.
Article 1 of the UN charter proposes the purpose of UN which are to maintain international peace and security and to take adequate steps to avert wars. To develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of equality. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic social cultural and humanitarian character and to be centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The principles of UN are given in Article 2 of UN charter and it is attributed that they are the means of to achieve the objectives of UN. They are
1. All the member states are equal.
2. The member states shall fulfill their obligations to the UN honestly.
3. The member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means.
4. The member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against any other state.
5. The member states shall give to the UN every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the UN Charter.
6. The states which are not members of the UN, should also act in accordance with these principles for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. No member state shall interfere in the internal affairs of any other state.
Among the principal organs of UN, the Security Council is one of the prominent one. The Security Council is the executive body of the UN. It is called “the Power House” of the UN. It is made up of 15 members out of whom 5 are permanent members, each with a veto power. These are the USA, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom. Remaining 10 are non-permanent members who are elected by the General Assembly by a 2/3 majority for a term of two years.

Existence of United Nations Under Strain: Case Studies from Ukraine, Gaza, and Global Security Challenges

The Russian -Ukraine conflict beginning on 24 February 2022 with series of preceding events from 2014 constitutes a clear violation of both the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and the principle of territorial integrity, triggering the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) in the conflict. All parties—including Russian and Ukrainian state forces, separatists, and other armed groups—must comply with the laws of war. These rules require humane treatment of all individuals not or no longer engaged in hostilities, such as civilians, detainees, and the wounded, and expressly prohibit violence, torture, and mistreatment. Third states also bear responsibility under international law and Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, meaning they must not recognize or assist the legality of Russia’s actions and should cooperate to end the aggression through lawful means.

The UN Security Council’s and the International Court of Justice’s emphasize that both Israel and Hamas (Militia group) must comply with international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), prohibiting attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and requiring humanitarian aid delivery. The ICJ specifically directed Israel, under the Genocide Convention , to ensure unhindered humanitarian assistance and avoid actions that could destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza; Hamas was urged to release hostages, though it is not bound by the Convention. IHL and IHRL apply equally during armed conflict, with non- derogable rights such as the right to life and health remaining fully in force. Occupying or controlling powers, like Israel in Gaza, have a positive duty to ensure civilians’ access to essential services, including health care, food, water, and electricity, regardless of security justifications. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Human Rights Council have affirmed that these obligations cannot be suspended, even in war. Israel’s effective control over Gaza—air, land, and sea access—means it is legally responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of its inhabitants. However, military actions such as bombing hospitals, destroying civilian infrastructure, and restricting basic supplies have severely damaged Gaza’s already fragile health system. The result is a surge in the number and severity of injuries and illnesses amid critical shortages of medical staff, supplies, and facilities. United Nations believes lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is possible only when people’s basic economic, social, and cultural rights are properly protected and fulfilled. Respect for these rights is essential to ensure dignity, stability, and long-term harmony in the region.

The Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict

The Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict offers a sobering lesson for the international community. The United Nations helped establish the legal framework for peace, repeatedly called for ceasefires and negotiations, and raised humanitarian concerns. Yet, it could not prevent decades of unresolved hostility, the recurrence of war or the mass displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population. The UNO’s failure was not that it never spoke. It was that its words were not matched by sufficient collective action to secure a lasting political settlement.
Azerbaijan achieved its principal territorial objective. Armenia suffered a strategic defeat. But the ultimate measure of success cannot be the map alone. It must be whether people can live without fear, whether displaced families receive justice, whether rights are protected and whether future generations are spared the inheritance of hatred.
The international community must recognise that peace is not merely the absence of fighting; it is the presence of justice, security and trust. The enduring question for the UN is whether it can move beyond recording violations and issuing resolutions towards preventing the next war. That is the real lesson of Armenia and Azerbaijan: a war may end when one side wins, but a lasting peace begins only when both societies have a reason to preserve it.

Houthis and the UN

The Houthis, formally known as Ansar Allah, meaning “Supporters of God,” are a Yemeni political and armed movement rooted in the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam. Their origins lie in northern Yemen, particularly the Saada region, where Zaydi religious and cultural traditions have historically been influential.
Houthis Attack Ships in the Red Sea because it is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. Through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, it connects the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea and the Suez Canal route towards Europe. Disruption in this corridor can affect international trade, shipping costs, insurance premiums and the delivery of essential commodities. Beginning in late 2023, the Houthis launched attacks against commercial and merchant vessels in the Red Sea and surrounding waters. The movement presented these operations as a response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and claimed that its actions were intended to support the Palestinians. However, the stated political justification does not automatically establish the legality of attacking particular vessels. Merchant ships and their civilian crews cannot lawfully be treated as legitimate targets merely because of their nationality, commercial connections or presumed political associations. The legality of any particular attack depends on the applicable rules of international law, including the law of armed conflict where applicable. The attacks created risks for seafarers, disrupted commercial routes and prompted military responses by several states. They also transformed a conflict rooted in Yemen into a wider international security problem.
The United Nations Security Council has not remained entirely inactive. It has adopted resolutions condemning the attacks, demanding their cessation and addressing related concerns. These measures demonstrate that the Security Council has recognised the threat to international maritime security and has employed its diplomatic and institutional authority. Under Article 39, the Security Council may determine that a situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security and decide what measures are appropriate. It may demand that parties cease attacks, respect applicable obligations and cooperate with efforts to restore peace. Yet a resolution demanding that an armed group stop attacking ships does not, by itself, intercept a missile, disable a drone or physically prevent a launch. The practical effectiveness of a resolution depends on the measures attached to it, the willingness of states to implement those measures and the ability to influence the group concerned.
The main obstacles posing in front of UN to stop Houthis from attacks are institutional, political and operational. Firstly, the Houthis are a non-state armed movement with territorial control and military capabilities. They are not an ordinary government that can necessarily be compelled to comply through conventional diplomatic pressure. Secondly, the United Nations depends on member states to implement its decisions. Effective action requires cooperation in enforcing arms restrictions, monitoring financial networks, protecting shipping and conducting any properly authorised military operation. Thirdly, the Security Council is affected by the competing interests of its five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Under Article 27 of the Charter, a negative vote by a permanent member on a substantive resolution can prevent its adoption. Fourthly, military enforcement presents risks of escalation. Strikes against Houthi positions may damage military capabilities, but they may also cause civilian harm, provoke retaliation or widen the conflict. A strategy directed at protecting shipping must therefore be assessed not only for its immediate military effect but also for its legality, proportionality where applicable and consequences for regional peace. And finally, even substantial military pressure may not resolve the political and social conditions underlying Yemen’s conflict. Long-term security requires more than suppressing individual attacks; it also requires a credible political settlement and protection of the civilian population.
Security Council resolution condemning Houthi attacks does not, by itself, authorise every subsequent military response. Nor does a state’s assertion of self-defence automatically settle the legality of its actions. The underlying principle is that the international legal system must address both the original attacks and the legality of the response to them.

The General Assembly has become a forum of debate, but not of decisions

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), one of the five core bodies of UN was established in 1945 as the representative organ of the international community, embodies the ideals of sovereign equality, international cooperation and world peace. Yet, in the face of mounting global crises, its effectiveness is increasingly being questioned. Despite annual debates, numerous resolutions and ambitious declarations, the General Assembly has failed to deliver adequate solutions to some of the most pressing challenges of our time.
Global warming continues to threaten the planet, while commitments to reduce emissions often remain unfulfilled. Insurgencies, terrorism and armed conflicts persist in different regions, displacing millions and undermining international peace. Political instability, democratic backsliding and the polarisation of global powers have further weakened international cooperation. Rivalries among major powers frequently take precedence over collective responsibility, reducing multilateral diplomacy to a contest of political influence.
The fundamental weakness of the General Assembly lies in its limited enforcement powers. Under the UN Charter, most of its resolutions are recommendations rather than legally binding decisions. Although it provides an important platform for dialogue and international consensus, it cannot compel states to implement its recommendations. Moreover, the Security Council’s veto system, political divisions and the reluctance of powerful nations to compromise often obstruct meaningful action.
Consequently, the General Assembly risks becoming a forum where the world discusses its problems more effectively than it resolves them. Nevertheless, dismissing it entirely would be unwise, as it remains a vital platform for smaller nations, global cooperation and the articulation of international norms. The real challenge is not merely to preserve the United Nations but to reform it. Stronger accountability, more effective implementation mechanisms and greater political commitment are essential if multilateralism is to remain relevant.

Closing Perspective

UN aims that violence be limited to military necessity and that parties actively address humanitarian crises they create. In March 2025, the Academy’s Global Security and International Affairs program convened experts to assess the effectiveness and future of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) amid evolving armed conflicts and weakening rule of law. Participants identified major challenges: persistent violations of IHL, geopolitical tensions, autonomous weapons, AI in warfare, and the erosion of humanitarian norms along with degradation of democratic ethos
Key concerns included:
1. Relevance of UN in influencing belligerent behavior.
2. Compatibility of evolving nuclear doctrines with UN Resolutions.
3. Effectiveness of international courts, especially the ICC.
4. UN’s limited ability to address all forms of civilian harm.
While some see IHL as still influential—citing states’ claims of compliance—others noted its manipulation to justify civilian harm. Enforcement mechanisms such as courts, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure were debated. Gaps in IHL’s scope were acknowledged, particularly regarding nuclear warfare and emerging technologies.
Though, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is an integral part of international law; international law itself has just become power politics rather than justifiable instrument. International law, today, increasingly appears less as a neutral instrument of justice and more as a tool shaped by power politics. The world possesses established rules to limit the brutality of war, yet the institutions (UN) designed to promote international peace and security cannot always ensure compliance. While it was conceived to regulate state conduct, protect human dignity, and preserve peace, its selective enforcement and uneven application have weakened its moral authority. Powerful states often evade accountability, while weaker nations face stricter scrutiny, creating a perception that law serves influence rather than equity. This imbalance undermines global trust and had reduced international law to a strategic device in hands of powerful state rather than a principled framework for the globe. Contenders stress the importance of engaging wider audiences, including the public, whose moral instincts often align with IHL principles. The discussion concluded with calls for renewed commitment, innovative compliance strategies, and stronger collaboration among governments, civil society, and international organizations to preserve IHL’s relevance in modern warfare. The credibility of the UN ultimately depends not only on its ability to formulate legal principles, but also on its capacity to translate them into effective protection for human life and dignity.
If sovereignty is restored but human dignity is neglected, if treaties are signed but victims are forgotten, and if military victory is mistaken for reconciliation, then the conflict may be declared ‘over’ while its deeper wounds remain ‘open’.