The United Nations was founded in 1945 with a clear mission: to maintain international peace, enforce international law, and prevent global conflicts. Nearly eight decades later, its ability to fulfill that role is under intense scrutiny. At the center of the debate is the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the body tasked with making key decisions on peace and security. However, with five permanent members wielding veto power and ten rotating members, the Council’s effectiveness is increasingly being questioned.
Once considered the ultimate authority in conflict resolution, the UNSC is now struggling to assert its influence. Political divisions and power struggles have repeatedly stalled action, raising a fundamental question: is the Council’s failure due to a fleeting inefficiency, or does it signal a deeper crisis in the legitimacy of international law itself?
Recent cases illustrate this dysfunction. Resolution 2728, which called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas during Ramadan, and Resolution ES-11/1, which demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, both failed to produce tangible results. These high-profile failures reignite concerns over the UN’s ability to act in moments of global crisis. Is reform possible, or is the system structurally incapable of fulfilling its purpose?
Resolution 2728 (2024)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728, adopted on the 25th of March 2024, aimed to establish an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas during the month of Ramadan, as a step to achieve a lasting truce. It was proposed by the Council's ten non-permanent members , after a similar US-backed resolution on 22 March was blocked by vetoes from China and Russia. This time, however, the wording was deemed more neutral and less tied to Washington's agenda, making it more acceptable to Beijing and Moscow. As a result, the resolution was adopted with 14 votes in favour and a single abstention, from the United States. However, instead of being a sign of unity, its adoption only served to aggravate diplomatic tensions, frustrating Israel, exposing the strategic manoeuvres of China and Russia, and raising questions about the UN's ability to enforce its own decisions.
This event highlighted the limits of the Security Council in terms of effectiveness and legitimacy in the decision-making process. Even worse, even though the resolution was adopted, the Council could not enforce it, underlying another issue about the gap between adoption and implementation.
This problem is reinforced by the ambiguity of the council’s decisions’ binding nature . The United States takes the view that it is not binding because it falls under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, while other States point out that Article 25 of the Charter does not exclude the obligation to apply resolutions outside this framework. The term ‘requires’ suggests a binding scope, but without clear enforcement mechanisms, its impact remains limited.
Despite the intention to act, resolution 2728 ran into political tensions, mainly between the U.S., Russia, and China. This highlighted the ongoing struggle of the Security Council to put its decisions into action, especially when political rifts hold back decisive moves.
Resolution ES-11/1 (2022)
Another issue faced by the UNSC is the power held by permanent members through their veto, as highlighted by resolution ES-11/1 (2022), This resolution condemned Russia's aggression and called for the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Russia’s expected veto blocked the resolution at the UN Security Council, preventing any binding action. However, the General Assembly later passed it as a symbolic, non-binding measure.this phenomenon illustrated a profound contradiction within the UN system: the UN was created to guarantee international peace and security, but its key body, the Security Council, is locked in by the interests of its permanent members.
In such a context, using the General Assembly to override a veto, in this case, that of Russia, seems to be more of a symbolic reaction than a truly effective diplomatic response. While a massive condemnation may isolate a state on the international stage, it does nothing to change the balance of power on the ground realistically. The condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine by the general assembly doesn't carry much weight by itself. The real issue here isn’t just whether it’s binding, but the fact that there’s no mechanism to enforce it. Without binding resolutions or a way to back them up, the UN struggles to maintain legitimacy and influence, often reduced to offering moral judgments instead of tangible solutions.
Therefore, these two cases are not just setbacks, they expose a deeper, systemic issue within the UN. Time and time again, the organization finds itself trapped between its founding principles and the political realities imposed by its most powerful members. The Security Council, meant to be the guarantor of global stability, is regularly paralyzed by vetoes, while the General Assembly’s symbolic resolutions lack real weight. This raises a larger question: can an institution built to maintain peace still fulfil its mission when its own rules allow the most influential states to act with impunity? The crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness facing the UN today is not new, but each new failure makes it harder to ignore. How long can an institution tasked with maintaining global order remain effective if its actions are reduced to diplomatic gestures?
In addition, the world order that the UN embodies is gradually losing its hold on its primary task of maintaining international peace and security, primarily due to persistent internal conflicts between its permanent and non-permanent members. Beyond these operational failures, there’s also the question of the UN’s broader influence pushing its vision of a liberal world order onto states, sometimes at odds with local realities and alternative paths to stability.
Recent resolutions, though occasionally offering a sense of hope, seem increasingly like symbolic reactions to the growing complexity of global crises. Examples like ES-11/1 and those addressing Gaza demonstrate that, while the UN can still manage to broker diplomatic consensus, its actual mechanisms for action remain fragile and ineffective.
However, this article does not seek to undermine the UN's overall purpose but, rather, to provoke reflection on its current structures, mechanisms, and main challenges/difficulties. The need for reform is critical without strengthening its ability to act decisively, the UN risks becoming increasingly marginalized in the management of global conflicts.
