The end of multilateralism?

Ever since Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – and with it the entire system of collective security – has attracted popular criticism. After all, the mechanisms for preventing and managing armed conflict, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, have been unable to prevent or contain the war to any significant extent. Does this mean that the Security Council has failed?

In theory, the UN system of collective security provides that if one state attacks another, the international community (represented by the UN Security Council) will respond with diplomatic, economic or military sanctions of such significance that a potential aggressor is effectively deterred or an actual aggressor is thrown off course. In practice, however, the Security Council's voting rules make it difficult to implement this principle. It is a well-known fact that a resolution can only be adopted with the approval of the five permanent members, including Russia.

This right of veto afforded to the victors of World War II has always prevented the effective multilateral management of crises involving one or more of these states. It was not least at the instigation of the United States that the authority of the Security Council was limited to impeding wars between smaller or emerging states on the one hand and preventing wars between the great powers on the other. The veto powers never intended to rule out the possibility of their own colonial, imperial, or (later) liberal wars. Hence, we cannot really say that the Security Council has failed in the Ukraine war; the conflict has merely exposed the deliberate flaws of the system.

In view of the current geostrategic situation, however, even a Security Council with a more representative membership and without the right of veto could hardly have made a significant difference. While majority decisions may well have resulted in the Council condemning Russia and imposing more extensive sanctions, any form of military intervention would probably still have been ruled out. After all, NATO is the only military force capable of carrying out a Security Council-authorized mission in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, this would result in a direct confrontation of nuclear powers, the prevention of which is in the overriding interest of humanity as a whole.

UN still plays an important role in the Ukraine war

One of the bitter lessons of the war in Ukraine is that the institutional achievements after World War II and their consolidation following the Cold War still do not offer effective protection against power politics and the pursuit of national interests by military means. Multilateralism and international law are only effective if their norms are internalized by the members of the international community. As long as countries like China and India, which together make up a third of the global population, as well as a large number of authoritarian developing countries, refuse to even condemn Russia's hostilities, little can be gained from the existing instruments.

Nevertheless, the United Nations still plays an incredibly important role in the Ukraine war. In addition to a number of declaratory resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and Russia's exclusion from the UN Human Rights Council, which have accelerated the country's diplomatic isolation, it is mainly the humanitarian aspects of the UN's work that make an impact. Specialised organizations like the UN Refugee Agency, the World Food Programme or the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) are playing a key role in providing first aid and helping to alleviate human suffering.

The UN institutions responsible for obtaining and evaluating information are also playing an important role in the current situation; the High Commissioner for Human Rights is documenting evidence of Russian war crimes, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs has refuted Russia's allegation that Ukraine is conducting a biological weapons programme, and the International Court of Justice has rejected Russia's claims of Ukrainian genocide.

The United Nations cannot prevent wars. However, the organization makes an essential contribution to cushioning their humanitarian impact and enables conflicts to be dealt with through its institutional network. It remains to be seen whether the organization will play an even greater role in peace negotiations or subsequent peacekeeping. In this regard, much depends on the authority of the UN Secretary-General.