Relationship of the UN to the Current International System of States
The creation of the United Nations was a manifestation of the devastated world’s desire to prevent horrible global conflicts in the future. The UN Charter and structure adopted lessons from the failures of the League of Nations (Mingst & Karns, 2019). Despite the troubled atmosphere of the unfolding Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the UN handled its main task and prevented the escalation of rivalry into World War III. UN proved its necessity as a mediating body, where two superpowers could gauge each other’s intentions to keep the power struggle from setting a nuclear apocalypse in motion. However, as time went by, the world and international relations changed significantly. Likewise, the role of the UN in the international system of states endured a transformation. By the modern era, the justification for the UN’s existence shifted from an urgent political necessity to political utility.
In particular, the states use the UN to improve their political and economic standing among other nations. The UN acts as a global orchestration performer in various dimensions of international relations. For example, the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) offers a utility of a spearheading institution, a convening body, and a coordinating node (Hickman et al., 2021). The UN member states can utilize this UN institution to enact grassroots initiatives from civil society and distribute relevant information on the climate change problem to combat it more effectively (Hickman et al., 2021). In that regard, the UN offers the states a convenient utility tool for encouraging civil initiatives. The UN’s legitimacy reinforces one of the states, which strengthens the overall message of the need for sustainability.
In addition, the UN offers utility in terms of addressing socioeconomic problems of the modern era, which is especially important for the developing countries of the global South. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) encompasses over 70% of the UN system’s human and financial resources, underscoring the distinct humanitarian component of UN activities (Karns et al., 2015). The ultimate goal of the ECOSOC lies in identifying solutions to global economic, social, and health problems and encouraging universal respect for human rights and freedoms (Karns et al., 2015). As such, this UN body serves as a bridge between governments and non-governmental organizations, facilitating solutions that may be otherwise unfeasible for select states.
Furthermore, the UN offers valuable utility through its other bodies, such as the General Assembly and Security Council. The General Assembly provides all member states access to a large debate arena where their voice can be heard. This opportunity is particularly important for small countries whose opinions may go unnoticed otherwise (Karns et al., 2015). In the 20th century, the UN’s utility supported newly-independent states that emerged on the remains of colonial empires as sovereign nations (Muschik, 2018). The utility of the Security Council is more controversial due to its exclusivity-based format. Nevertheless, the Security Council grants its permanent members the utility of influencing global political events or preventing undesirable actions against them via veto power. While this tool can be exploited, it should still be qualified as a utility nonetheless.
Overall, one can conclude that modern states still need the presence of the UN in the current international system. However, the reason for needing the UN and its institutions has changed over time. After World War II, the UN was a necessity, an organization supposed to prevent another world war. Nowadays, sovereign states use UN bodies and affiliated institutions as a source of valuable utility tools. In turn, the UN continues its existence and influences the world through orchestration and multilateral diplomacy.
UN Intrinsic Legitimacy Sources and Reasons for Questioning UN as a Governing Authority
On the one hand, the UN has several important sources of intrinsic legitimacy that make the states willing to accept the UN’s authority. Firstly, the UN Charter introduces lucrative principles of self-determination and sovereign equality. The self-determination principle posits strict rejection of imperialism and colonialism, which is important for the identity of former colonies as true sovereign states (Mingst & Karns, 2019). The equality principle presumes that the legal status of all UN members is not affected by a country’s size, wealth, or military power (Karns et al., 2015). As such, the UN remains one of the few places where a small country has an opportunity to be heard instead of being driven into submission by more powerful states.
Furthermore, the UN provides an opportunity for a fair representation of previously underrepresented communities. This feature of the UN is particularly important for countries with a significant share of the population belonging to historically oppressed or persecuted nations. For example, in 2007, the UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Gilbert & Lennox, 2019). This Declaration provided indigenous peoples across the world with a rightful place in world governance (Gilbert & Lennox, 2019). For countries with significant indigenous populations, the authority of the UN is legitimate on the grounds of being a platform of worldwide advocacy for indigenous nations’ rights. A similar logic applies to minorities or nations that once suffered from oppression.
Finally, the UN attains intrinsic legitimacy by plotting the course of global development in accordance with the most pressing challenges of the modern world. In particular, this aspect of UN legitimacy can be found in UN Sustainable Development Goals, a rallying cry, a call for action aimed toward global stakeholders. In this example, the UN took the responsibility to set the standards of sustainability for national governments across the world. According to Pedersen (2018), the UN offered a gift to international businesses by providing them with guidance and setting a standard of corporate responsibility. The UN set sustainable development goals based on a country-level evaluation and put expectations on the governments and private companies, making them responsible for the planet’s future (Pizzi et al., 2020). As such, the UN gained intrinsic legitimacy by demonstrating its commitment to the future of Earth.
However, the authority of the UN is limited by excessive bureaucratization, areas of activity, and the absence of a decision enforcement mechanism in certain situations. In regard to crippling bureaucracy, General Assembly is the worst offender among the key UN bodies. According to Karns et al. (2015), in 2013, the 68th Assembly passed 303 resolutions, many of which had been passed for the sake of doing work and following the standard operation protocol. Many resolutions resurface in the agenda annually and get passed repeatedly with little concern for subsequent implementation. In addition, the texts are frequently formulated in general or vague terms in order to avoid controversy (Karns et al., 2015). As a result, UN authority erodes due to the lack of meaningful action on its own resolutions.
Furthermore, UN legitimacy is compromised by the format of the Security Council and the questionable foundations of its power. Security Council consists of five permanent and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms, which makes it an elite club within the UN structure. While such a design increases decision-making speed compared to the unwieldy machine of the General Assembly, it essentially contradicts the principle of sovereign equality, endowing the Council members with power over other states. Consequently, one can argue that Security Council does not have the legitimacy to take the powers and responsibility it takes (Tyagi & Agrawal, 2020). By developing this logic, one can claim that states are forced to abide by the decisions of a body based on questionable legitimacy.
Lastly, the UN authority suffers from the lack of enforcement mechanisms on the decisions of its bodies. This issue is particularly noticeable in the case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). While ICJ decisions are legally binding on paper, the lack of enforcement mechanisms means that the states’ compliance depends entirely on the goodwill and perceived legitimacy of the court’s ruling (Karns et al., 2015). Overall, the UN retains authority as a global forum and a platform for global socioeconomic development. However, the UN’s legitimacy as a governing authority is limited in affairs related to international law and security.
Compatibility of Christian Worldview and World Government
Most importantly, the concept of world government should be separated from world governance. States and international organizations, including the UN, already practice world governance. While it has found mixed success in the past, world governance is a practice that undoubtedly exists. In contrast, world government, a system where the planet is ruled from a single center, either exists in conspiracy theories or far-fetched visions of the future. World government can theoretically emerge from a coercive or a consensual scenario. In a coercive scenario, one dominant superpower or a powerful union of states would impose its political will on the rest of the world. In a consensual scenario, all states would agree to surrender their sovereignty, thus forming the world government.
An attempt to establish world government through coercion would likely result in a global military conflict, which is undesirable. This version of the world government would be similar to a horned beast from the Book of Daniel. That horrible beast “will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it” (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011, Daniel 7:23). An idea of all states willingly surrendering their sovereignty to the UN would be more compatible with Christianity. This world would be close to a perfect biblical vision where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011, Galatians 3:28). At least, this version of world government would be based on equality, not supremacy of some chosen state.
However, the possibility of the UN becoming the foundation of the consensually-formed world government is virtually nonexistent. In democracies, politicians represent their voters, and even the most liberal, pro-globalist voters would unlikely agree to see their country disappear. In autocracies, the situation would be even more complicated since autocrats would oppose any idea of submission to global standards unless these standards reinforce their rule. Furthermore, world government (not governance!) would directly contradict the UN principle of self-determination. Overall, unifying sovereign states under the banner of one world government would require reaching a consensus between billions — a colossal undertaking compared to forming “a more perfect” American Union in the 18th century. While the peaceful creation of world government would be compatible with a Christian worldview, this scenario remains a utopia.
References
Gilbert, J., & Lennox, C. (2019). Towards new development paradigms: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool to support self-determined development. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(1-2), 104-124. Web.
Hickmann, T., Widerberg, O., Lederer, M., & Pattberg, P. (2021). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(1), 21-38. Web.
Holy Bible, New International Version (2011). Bible Gateway. Web.
Karns, M. P., Mingst, K.A., & Kendall, W. (2015). The politics and processes of global governance (3rd ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Mingst, K.A., & Karns, M. P. (2019). The United Nations in the post-Cold War era (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Muschik, E. M. (2018). Managing the world: the United Nations, decolonization, and the strange triumph of state sovereignty in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of Global History, 13(1), 121-144. Web.
Pedersen, C. S. (2018). The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a great gift to business!. Procedia CIRP, 69, 21-24. Web.
Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124033. Web.
Tyagi, P., & Agrawal, R. (2020). The current status of the Security Council’s role in international peace and security. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 10(2), 170-175. Web.