UN and NATO

UN establishment

• 1945- 50 countries met in san fran - successor to league of nations

• primary aim of preventing another global conflict post-war and promoting peace and cooperation amongst nations

UN charter- legal framework for operation of UN

• Article 1 - maintaining peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, achieving intl. cooperation in solving intl problems

• Article 2- Key principles of UN e.g sovereign equality of all member states- internal sovereignty and non-intervention

Effect of decolonisation on UN

• sharp increase in UN membership- African, Asian and Caribbean countries

• UN advocated for self-determination

• growing emphasis on poverty relief

Cold war & UNSC

gridlock, post fall of USSR= surge in membership from eastern europe. more peacekeeping missions authorised

3 countries that arent member states

• Taiwan

• Vatican city (Holy See- permanent observer status)

• Palestine- from 2012, UNGA voted it a non-member observer state. 9 countries voted against, 41 abstained (UK), 138 for. Allowed Palestine to apply to join ICC, which now has power to investigate IDF for war crimes

• EU and AU - observer status

3 main roles of UNSC

ability to impose sanctions, authorise force and establish peacekeeping missions

• Make resolutions to maintain peace e.g send mediators and ceasefire monitors

• Authorise peacekeeping

• enforce peace- embargos, sanctions etc, and military intervention as last resort

• can also refer situations to ICC e.g President Al-Bashir of Sudan in 2005

P5 and non-permanent members

• P5- US,UK, France, China, Russia= veto power over substantive decision

• 10 non permanent- e.g Colombia, Latvia, DRC, Bahrain 2026

Chapter V of UN charter

• UNSC acts on behalf of states in maintaining peace

• makes resolutions that states must accept and follow

principles of peacekeeping

• consent of the main parties in the conflict

• impartiality

• minimal force- used only in self defence or in defence of UN mandate, for example, Cote d’Ivoire, UNSC resolution 1528 from 2004-2017

forms of peacekeeping UNSC can enforce under chapter VII (7)

• Traditional peacekeeping (1940s onwards)- deploys lightly armed forces to monitor ceasefire or disputed borders E.G UNFICYP from 1964- UN peacekeeping force in cyprus seperates greek and turkish cypriot communities

• Multidimensional (1990s)- civilian support alongside UN forces- UNMIK in Kosovo

• Robust peacekeeping (1990s)- ‘all necessary measures’ incl. force against armed groups to protect civilians and maintain peace e.g DRC

reason for turn towards more robust peacekeeping

response to failure of UN peacekeepers to hinder mass atrocities - Rwandan genocide and Srebrenica massacre

principles of peace enforcement

• Does not require consent

• significant force may be applied by states on behalf of UNSC- Operation Desert storm (Iraq/Kuwait 1990- aimed to force Iraqi forces to withdraw from Kuwait)

• last resort

Veto stats

• France and UK havent used veto since 1989- reflecting declining power

• Since 1946, there has been 329 vetos

  • 162 Russian

  • 95 US

  • 32 UK

  • 22 China

  • 18 France

Uk and France have not used vetos since 1989

according to UNSC website, vetos are most frequently on the topic of the admission of new members, the Palestinian question, Syria

Veto

• can lead to gridlock, prevents decisive action

• was designed to ensure no major power forced into action against its will- preserving post-45 balance of power

UNSC non-permanent states

elected by UNGA, based on regional quotas, 2 year terms

Quote by Dag Hammarskjold, 1st UN Sec

‘The UN wasnt created to take mankind into paradise, but rather, to save humankind from hell’

Strengths of UNSC

• rapid response to global crises e.g Resolution 2177 2024 on ebola outbreak

• legitimacy of decisions through collective agreement - binding decisions, veto prevents escalation

• peacekeeping and conflict resolutions mechanisms- can deescalate conflict

Weaknesses of UNSC

• veto power creates gridlock- e.g Syrian Civil War continued 2011-2014 due to Russian/Chinese vetos on intervention, similarly took 8 months to agree ceasefire resolution in Gaza due to US refusal to condemn Israel

• Representation and legitimacy issues- does not represent contemporary order- rising powers e.g India and Brazil do not hold seats, lack of broader African representation= diminishes legitimacy in global south

• Inconsistent crisis response (due to veto)- largely driven by geopolitical interests. decisive action in Libya 2011, but unable to respond to Syria/yemeni civil wars

• Ineffectiveness of resolutions and sanctions- North Korea ignore sanctions, forcing population deeper into poverty

Example of UNSC success

Libera peacekeeping operation 2003

UNMIL disarmed over 100,000 combatants and supporting peaceful transition to democratic govt

demonstrates UNSC capacity to mobilise resources and respond rapidly and effectively to humanitarian crises

ALSO: peace enforcement: Gulf war 1991 US led collective action, Bosnia 1995 and Kosovo 1999

11 active peacekeeping missions 2025, P5 contribute most to peacekeeping budget

UNSC has failed to achieve peace and security

• No P5 standing army

• ‘asleep on the job’ in Rwanda 1994 and Srebrenica 1995

• could not stop illegal war Iraq 2003

• new era of anti-interventionism? - no new peacekeeping missions since CAR 2014

• Veto has blocked urgent action- Syria and Gaza, Ukraine

UNGA membership

• 193 member states all represented

• UNSC P5 can veto membership applications

• non-member ‘observers’- ‘2 tier system?’

• size and expertise of state delegations varies based on wealth and status

UNGA decision making

• voting on ‘one country, one vote’= sovereign equality

• sub-committees work all year round, records on UN website

• most decisions on simple majority vote, but peace & security, annual budget and admitting new member require 2/3 of vote

• in practice, many states vote in ‘blocs’ w p5 members they are dependent on, or against enemies

UNGA effectiveness

• decisions are non-binding resolutions- ‘recommendations’

• resolutions show strength of opinion in intl. community about actions of states- 2022 resolution condemning attack on Ukraine

• no veto system- 2017 Russia vetoed UNSC condemnation of HR abuses in Syria, however UNGA passed resolution condemning use of chemical weapons

• UNGA can make ‘declarations’ of intent - UDHR 1948, Millenium declaration 2000 created MDGs and SDGs- e.g 2015 zero hunger

• some resolutions have proposed writings of treaties which can become intl. law, for example, the 1950 genocide convention

UNGA elects

• 10 non-permanent UNSC members

• Human rights council- 3 year terms

• ECOSOC - 3 year terms

• UN SEC GEN- based on unsc nominations

How important? UNGA

• Set moral and political standards that guide state behaviour BUT non-binding resolutions limit effectiveness

• Forum for diplomatic engagement and intl cooperation e.g SDGs BUT forum for debate rather than action- lacks power to make tangible impact

• Can apply moral pressure on states VS nuclear resolutions have not compelled nuclear powers to dismantle their arsenals e.g 2016 resolution for Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)

ECOSOC membership

• 54 member states elected by UNGA for 3 year terms

Key purpose of ECOSOC

promote intl. economic and social cooperation and to advance UN SDGs

work of ecosoc

• electing members to commissions and bodies e.g commission on the status of women and commission on human rights

• provides platform for IGOs, NGOs and private sector to contribute to global development strategies

• reviews and monitors progress on 2030 SDGs

• Coordinates work of UN specialised agencies e.g WHO

ICJ

• only court of universal character for settling legal disputes between states

• 15 judges elected on 9 year terms by UNGA and UNSC (P5 put forward recommendations)- represent states legal systems

• Main roles - settle disputes between states ‘contentious cases’ 80% and ‘advisory opinions’ 20% (Not binding)

• ‘world court’ with aim of upholding peace and justice

strengths of ICJ

• upholds liberal principles for rule of law, HR and peaceful conflict resolution

• genuine neutrality in arbitration of disputes between states- rulings have legitimacy and moral authority

• resolved a number of significant disputes over territory and borders e.g Thailand and Cambodia border dispute- court issues request to remove troops and this was respected

• Its advisory opinions have often helped to prepare the ground for post-conflict settlements e.g South Africa’s acceptance of Namibia’s independence 1989

Weaknesses of ICJ

• Liberal principle conflicts with realist state egoism- states sometimes challenge its authority by failing to respond to ruling e.g 2024 ICJ ordrered Israel to take immediate and effective measures to ensure humanitarian aid in Gaza (S.A Genocide allegations)

• Russia also failed to comply with 2022 ICJ order to immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine

• No way of enforcing rulings- dependent on UNSC. 1986 Nicaragua case- US vetoed enforcement of judgement at UNSC. Powerful states can ignore ICJ decisions

• Jurisdiction limited to states- cannot prosecute individuals or corporations- limited influence

• Cannot initiate cases against states- only when cases presented to it and where both parties have signed agreement- entirely based on states committment

• Advisory opinions non-binding and can be legitimately ignored by states- lack of influence BUT encourages realist states to be members

NATO purpose

• est 1949- collective defence mechanism to counter growing threat of USSR (C-W) foster US/Western european cooperation

• Lord Ismay 1st sec-gen ‘keep the russians out, the americans in and the Germans down’

• Warsaw pact/Nato= power balance

• 2024- 32 member states

• NATO enlargement after CW

Article 5

states an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all states and met with a collective response

only been used once post 9/11- would all states come to collective defence of another member?

decision making in NATO

• NAC (north atlantic council)- highest authority- decisions by consensus

• states may opt out of operations e.g Germany in Libya 2011, which provided humanitarian intervention instead

• US military might holds most sway

• NATO sec-gen - political leader, chairs meetings of NAC, currently Mark Rutte

• relies on contributions from states, no standing army

NATO post cold war

• 1992 onwards- humanitarian/peacekeeping role in former Yugoslavia

• NATO enlargement in E-Europe- 2004 Istanbul summit- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc.

NATO 2000s

• 2001 Article 5 invoked to defend US airspace post 9/11

• Bosnia and Herzegovina 1990s- first ever military intervention outside member states by NATO (Operation deliberate force 1995)

• 2008- supported Kosovo’s independence, ignoring Russian and Serbian objectives

• Tensions with Russia after enlargement and Russian intervention in Georgia?

• 2008- counter piracy operations in Somalia, humanitarian supplies 2005 Sudan= new role?

NATO- Libya

• 2011 NATO intervention in Libya authorised by UNSC

• established a ‘no-fly zone’ resulting in death of Gaddafi and collapse of the state- this worsened tensions with Russia as Russia viewed it as going beyond humanitarian mandate

• 2014- Russian annexation of Crimea- NATO condemns and triples response force, sending enhanced battlegroups to Baltic states to deter direct aggression

• Crimea- NATO suspended all practical cooperation with Russia through NATO-Russia council

NATO US tensions

• 2016- only 4 European members had met NATO goal of 2% GDP on defence- Trump criticizes Germany and threatens to withdraw

• Biden honoured Trump-Taliban deal to withdraw NATO from Afghanistan- botched exit led to humanitarian crisis and Nato anger. European ‘free riders’

• 2024- 20 states committed to 2% defence

• 2025- US ambassador to NATO demanded 5% GDP- 3.5% defence, 1.5% intelligence

• Trump see China as strategic rival- undermine collective security alliance?

• Article 42 of EU Lisbon treaty proposes similar means of collective defence. Can Europe defend itself without US?

Rutte’s proposal

achieve 5% GDP goal by 2032, European leaders now taking realist view they can no longer rely on Trump but want to maintain transatlantic alliance

Olaf Scholz announced ‘zeitenwende’- tp- 100bn euros into defence budget

Mearsheimer on NATO

NATO expansion cause of rising tensions with Russia- security dilemma

Putin - ‘They were promises not to expand NATO even one inch to the East. I repeat, they deceived us’

Effect of war with Ukraine on NATO

Returned NATO’s focus to collective defence and deterrence- Ukraine applies to join NATO, refusal until war ends

2023- Stockholm Intl. Peace Research- NATO accounted for 55% of global military spending

NATO members have helped arm Ukraine- training Ukrainian armed forces since 2014 and halted Russia’s advance

One consequence of war on ukraine on NATO

• Finland joins 2023- border with Russia

• Sweden joins 2024- traditionally neutral

NATO decision making

+ Consensus, flexible decision making. Once a decision has been agreed by all members it contains force and support of most effective military alliance- 3 nuclear powers

-Requires unanimity= slow and conservative decision making. Difficult to get full agreement - Orban is close with Putin and Xi

(this is also a weakness of decision making as member states have conflicting interests e.g Turkey fought against Kurds in Syria/ ambivalent relationship with Russia)

French vs US perspective of NATO’s role in global governance

• French argue UNSC must authorise NATOs use of force- prioritising its humanitarian role, based on intergovernmental consent (democratic- liberal view)

• US argue NATO has right to use force if interests of members require- prioritises collective defence role, and realist- emphasis on national interest

NATO and state sovereignty

• Consensus decision making for member states, enhances external sovereignty

• But infringes on states it has intervened in- Kosovo, ISAF in Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia for security or humanitarian reasons

• but- humanitarian role can play part in rebuilding democratic govt- Bosnia- regains sovereignty??

example of natos relevance in modern warfare

Cyber Defence Pledge and integration of cyber threats into its collective defence strategy

key criticisms of NATOs purpose

• lack of shared vision and commitment to NATO among members

• NATO has overextended beyond its original mandate

• NATO has failed to prevent Russian aggression in europe

September 2025- Trump’s speech at 80th session of UNGA

Criticised UN as bureaucratic and questions its purpose