{"id":155455,"date":"2026-04-01T15:51:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T22:51:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=155455"},"modified":"2026-04-01T15:51:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T22:51:06","slug":"collapse-of-the-world-order-and-the-impotence-of-the-un-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2026\/04\/01\/collapse-of-the-world-order-and-the-impotence-of-the-un-system\/","title":{"rendered":"Collapse of the World order and the impotence of the UN system"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Raj Gonsalkorale<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Failure of the UN system is a failure of member States to maintain and foster its objectives. Inequality of the powers of member States, and the partiality shown by some States in decision making have contributed to the overall impotence of the system. Erosion of objectivity to uphold the charter approved by Member States appears to be the main cause of this impotence<\/em>. Decline of the UN system is a manifestation of the impermanence of all things. However, a system vacuum in the world order is not the answer as it could lead to anarchy and greater suffering throughout the world. Perhaps regionalism and collective decision making by regions and regional groupings could be the new Order that should replace the old Order.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With all its blemishes and shortcomings, the World order as one knew it, provided some degree of respect for human lives and the sovereignty of Nations before a new order that is unfolding before the world came into being. At this stage, the new order is dominated by a few over many and the many does not have any power or a voice in how the new order is attempting to determine rules for the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of World War II, the world was desperate to avoid such a conflict in the future and after an unsuccessful attempt to drive multilateral<\/a> cooperation through the League of Nations after World War I, national leaders came together to create the United Nations (UN)<\/a>. Designed as a forum for international engagement, the UN was founded to defuse international conflicts and to stop aggression from escalating into a full-scale war. Underpinning this new world order was a respect for sovereignty<\/a>\u2014the principle that no country can interfere in the domestic affairs of another.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the United Nations maintained that sovereignty must be respected. But after the Rwandan genocide<\/a> and wars in the former Yugoslavia<\/a> in the 1990s, scholars and diplomats reevaluated this thinking. In 2005, UN members endorsed the responsibility to protect (R2P)<\/a> doctrine. This idea asserts countries have a fundamental sovereign responsibility to protect their citizens. If they fail to do so, the UN has the responsibility to protect vulnerable people. R2P allows the UN (and its member countries) to violate another country’s sovereignty if needed to protect innocent and engaged people. In other words, countries acting within the UN system can use all means necessary\u2014including military intervention\u2014to prevent large-scale loss of life and violation of their basic rights as humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the context of the ongoing conflict involving Iran, the USA and Isreal, and preceding this, the annihilation of Palestinians in Gaza, it appears that the R2P doctrine has been consigned to history. Activities of parties like Hamas, Hezbollah on the one hand and the Iran Revolutionary Guard on the other have been used as reasons for military intervention by Isreal in Gaza and Lebanon, and by the USA and Isreal in Iran. In either case, there is no indication that the UN has been involved in any effective way within the ambit of the R2P doctrine to defuse the unilateral Military activities of Isreal and the USA and prevent the large-scale loss of lives. Overall, the system has failed as evident from these recent events. While this is not a reflection on individual leaders, it is a reflection on a system that has failed and which has provided avenues for some leaders to act in their country\u2019s self-interest at the expense of the rights of others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the United Nations (UN) has a mandate to involve itself in countries with repressive regimes, they are constrained by the influence of superpowers who are members of the UN Security Council with veto powers to prevent any such intervention if they feel such action will be against their self-interest. While the UN Charter is built on the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention in domestic affairs (Article 2(7)), it is balanced by obligations to uphold international peace, security, and human rights although recent events have not been consistent with this policy (https:\/\/main<\/a>.un.org\/securitycouncil\/ en\/content\/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter#:~:text=E.-,Article%202%20(7)%20%2D%20Non %2 Dintervention%20in%20domestic %20affairs, a%20particular%20situation%20was%20questioned)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UN’s involvement in such countries is primarily handled through the Security Council, which can authorize actions ranging from diplomatic pressure to military intervention when a regime’s actions pose a “threat to international peace and security,” a definition that has broadened over time to include mass atrocity crimes. Readers are left to ponder whether the UN Security Council took any concrete action, diplomatic or Military, to intervene in the above-mentioned situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect does so by mobilizing the international community to act in situations where populations are at risk of mass atrocity crimes. The limitations faced are many and the selective, self interest motivated decision making by countries that hold veto powers is one on the key limitations as stated by the Council on Foreign Relations (https:\/\/education.cfr.org\/learn\/timeline\/rise-and-fall-responsibility-protect#:~:text=To%20help%20facilitate%20a%20transition,2011%20amid%20Libya’s%20civil%20war.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the UN has the legal mandate (via Chapter VII and the R2P norm) to intervene in repressive regimes, the practical execution of this mandate has been limited by the geopolitical interests of the Veto power holding members and the threshold selectively applied to deem a domestic situation a threat to international peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to protection of human rights, and loss of innocent lives in member countries, it is very unlikely that the failed UN system could be resurrected as its flaws are many. The overriding power given to the Security Council with veto power given to some members of the council over the wishes of member countries is one of them. Even if an attempt is made to resurrect the UN system, it is extremely unlikely that the security council itself and its powers will be changed. In this context, a system that distributes this power and responsibility will have to be considered to protect the citizens of the world from human rights abuses and loss of lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A regional model is suggested as an option to replace the UN system. In such a model, the global “police” role could shift from a central UN Security Council with individual country membership, to a council with membership of organizations like the African Union (AU)<\/strong>, ASEAN<\/strong>, the European Union (EU)<\/strong>, the Organization of American States (OAS)<\/strong> and similar regional groupings (current groups and ones that may be formed) focused more on trade and commercial activities rather than security interests, without any individual country membership. As a norm, the responsibility for ensuring basic human rights in any country within a regional grouping are upheld and no lives are lost in defending that basic right, should first and foremost be with the specific regional grouping. In such instances, negotiations and diplomacy should always be the first and main option, but the grouping should have an option to intervene through trade sanctions, and as a last resort, militarily if diplomacy and sanctions fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This approach is built on three main pillars:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Local Solutions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core logic is that neighbours understand a conflict\u2019s history, culture, and key players better than a bureaucrat in New York. Regional bodies have a higher stake in stability because refugee flows and economic spillover hit them first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Legitimacy and Peer Pressure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regimes that ignore UN resolutions often find it harder to ignore their neighbours. It is reported that for example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n