Beyond the question of whether the UN outcome is more peace making or war making, the real issue seems to be that the UN is selective in its range of action, due to its over-politicizing, especially through the Security Council. Not only UN 's attention on conflicts in selective, but on top of that the criteria upon which the Council agrees to discuss or intervene within an issue are in any case not the reflection of the global community interest, but rather the game of great powers dominance within the organisation. Looking at decisions taken by the Security Council and attitudes of States towards them, one is led to recognize that those account in States foreign policy decisions to a certain extent. If States takes UN decisions into account
…show more content…
Governments, except perhaps that of the US, on the whole convey considerable importance to the SC decisions, in spite of its weakness in legal enforcement of them. For instance, Japan adopted a law making any of its military involvements conditional on SC authorizations. The growing importance that States place in SC decisions in turn has gained importance in public opinion, the latter being more supportive of an intervention supported by the UN. Moreover, it is worth noting that the scope of the SC 's influence regarding legitimating the use of force is rather recent: to the notable exceptions of Congo (1960) and Korea (1950), most armed interventions ignored UN resolutions, especially during the Cold War. Claude has argued "the world organization has come to be regarded, and used, as a dispenser of politically significant approval and disapproval of the claims, policies and actions of states". If the UNSC stamp is not crucial to states foreign policy decisions, States have build on its political influence on legitimization of military interventions. Indeed, the UN lacking enforcement resources, a country disobeying a resolution prohibiting a given military intervention risk in fact very little. However, the influence of the SC resides in the …show more content…
Dominated by the major world powers that won WWII, the elite States of the system have tried and managed to establish within the UN, or rather duplicate a hierarchy especially through the operative powers they have granted themselves: permanent seat in the SC, right of veto, article 12 of the Charter preventing the General Assembly from even giving a recommendation over any topic on which the SC has been seized. The right of veto in particular enabled the P5 to prevent or Council action to crises in which they have a direct interest. To this regard, one may recall conflicts of the Cold War years the inability of the Council to intervene in crises in Eastern Europe involving the USSR, in Cuba in 1961 or over France 's various interventions in its ex colonies in Africa. A current illustration of this politicized struggle of interest is the case of the Syrian civil war since 2011, where an intervention to protect population is made impossible by the over weight of Russia in the decision-making
Governments, except perhaps that of the US, on the whole convey considerable importance to the SC decisions, in spite of its weakness in legal enforcement of them. For instance, Japan adopted a law making any of its military involvements conditional on SC authorizations. The growing importance that States place in SC decisions in turn has gained importance in public opinion, the latter being more supportive of an intervention supported by the UN. Moreover, it is worth noting that the scope of the SC 's influence regarding legitimating the use of force is rather recent: to the notable exceptions of Congo (1960) and Korea (1950), most armed interventions ignored UN resolutions, especially during the Cold War. Claude has argued "the world organization has come to be regarded, and used, as a dispenser of politically significant approval and disapproval of the claims, policies and actions of states". If the UNSC stamp is not crucial to states foreign policy decisions, States have build on its political influence on legitimization of military interventions. Indeed, the UN lacking enforcement resources, a country disobeying a resolution prohibiting a given military intervention risk in fact very little. However, the influence of the SC resides in the …show more content…
Dominated by the major world powers that won WWII, the elite States of the system have tried and managed to establish within the UN, or rather duplicate a hierarchy especially through the operative powers they have granted themselves: permanent seat in the SC, right of veto, article 12 of the Charter preventing the General Assembly from even giving a recommendation over any topic on which the SC has been seized. The right of veto in particular enabled the P5 to prevent or Council action to crises in which they have a direct interest. To this regard, one may recall conflicts of the Cold War years the inability of the Council to intervene in crises in Eastern Europe involving the USSR, in Cuba in 1961 or over France 's various interventions in its ex colonies in Africa. A current illustration of this politicized struggle of interest is the case of the Syrian civil war since 2011, where an intervention to protect population is made impossible by the over weight of Russia in the decision-making