Have member states failed the UN Charter?

The framers of the UN Charter negotiated its stipulations amidst the ongoing carnage of World War II and while the memories of the League of Nations’ failure were still fresh. They hoped for a renewed and successful effort to create a lasting peace but were aware that it required the complete adherence of all member states to the requirements of the Charter. But it was not to happen. The unrestrained pursuit of national interests and the Cold War continuously prevented the implementation of basic demands of the Charter. Due to the Soviet Union’s absence, the UN was exceptionally able to act in the Korean War and then again for several years after the end of the Cold War against aggression and terrorism.

Throughout the history of the UN, member states have violated the norms of the Charter—in particular the Permanent Members, who repeatedly abused their special powers to pursue purely national interests. Interventions in the internal affairs of other nations have occurred repeatedly as have usurpations of the territory of other states, Russia’s annexation of the Ukraine being the latest. With regard to other norms of the Charter, such as the observation of human rights or treaty obligations, violations have been frequent and are ongoing.

But the question whether members have failed the UN Charter, while remaining important, is badly suited to assess the impact of the UN Charter, considering that it has successfully shaped world politics despite frequent violations of its norms by member states.  Looking at the overall performance of the UN, the impressive successes in numerous areas more than compensate for the failures, only a few of which can be mentioned here.

Though the UN could not prevent the outbreak of a considerable number of inter-state and civil wars, it helped to resolve many conflicts thanks in particular to the expanding role of peace keeping. It conducted 60 field missions and negotiated 172 peaceful settlements that ended local and regional conflicts.

To be sure, the Security Council is repeatedly ineffective in dealing with conflicts, often due to the veto of a Permanent Member. But the fact that conflicts can be brought to this global forum and be addressed there has an overall dampening impact on potential escalation, though its exact scope is difficult to assess.  On problems related to the spread of nuclear weapons -a major peace relevant area- the role of the UN negotiated Non-Proliferation Treaty and of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been crucial. Though critics will argue that it did not prevent the acquisition of these weapons by India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, one can assume that without this global effort the number would be significantly higher. The agreement among the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany on controlling Iran’s nuclear program represents the latest effort in this field. If President Trump implements his threat to withdraw from the deal, it will have major negative consequences for the non-proliferation system and international stability. 

The UN has been instrumental in making overdue advances in the field of climate control, has combated world hunger by feeding millions, advanced the development of the poorer countries of the world, promoted human rights, developed open trade, and helped to underpin international politics with multilateral codification.  To be sure, disasters such as the Rwandan genocide, the massacre of Srebenica, or the ongoing wars, remain appalling manifestations of failure. But as Dag Hammarskjold rightly put it, the UN “was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”