Though UN was established for purposes of pursuing, promoting and midwifing peace and security through provision of a legal framework as observed under chapter VI and VII, art 2(4) and art 51 of the charter-UN, her powers are hampered by political restrictions, limited enforcement capabilities and lack of judicial oversight.
UN’s structure is more political than judicial as based on the power consensus model of 1945, with no mechanism of pursuing formal remedies for her members who violate her charter.
UNSC power (-another organ of UN) has been an insurmountable barrier to action to a permanent member and her allies who could be directly a party to the conflict.
I Observe the following UN failures from four angles:
- The veto power structure
- Divergent interpretation of self defence
- Gap between UN legal mechanism and enforcement, and lastly
- Geopolitical Rivalry, disputes and polarization within the council.
As:
1: Veto powers in security council will block binding resolutions more so if they are party to the conflict hence, council’s failure to condemn aggressions or authorize actions against such members and their allies.
2: Ambiguity in UN Charter; The broad and parochial interpretation of “anticipatory self-defense” (article 51) by states to justify unilateral strikes undermines art. 2(4) prohibition on the use of force.
Whereas Israel-US attack was termed pre-emptive, and anticipatory self defence against eminent threats from Iran’s nuclear plants, the requirement isn’t that a state has dangerous capabilities but rather that an armed attack is eminent and evidence based.
3.Enforcement Gap & Institutional Weakness.
UN bodies (UNSC, ICJ, GA) can only adjudicate and issue condemnations or rulings but lack mechanisms to enforce compliance during a crisis. This limits UN’s role to moral suasion and post-conflict justice, hence ineffective at stopping active hostilities.
4: Geopolitical Rivalry & Polarization.
UNSC is now a forum for hypocrisy and victim blaming. Disputes over procedural matters have created a sharp division that have deterred substantive action. members use this forum for political confrontation, blocking consensus and cooperative diplomacy, an act that seems to have qualified into a none written but rather silently observed law among the 19-member states with intent of defending personal interests than global concerns.
Examples can be fetched from:
a) September, 2025 when UK, US, France vetoed a Russian- Chinese draft resolution aimed at extending diplomacy, and chose a snapback of sanctions on Iran to proceed;
b) So was the 2026 UNSC emergency meeting when Russia- China requested to frame the US Israel strikes as direct threat to international peace and security was rejected by the western powers and their allies.
In brief, whereas UN provides a system for collective security, its mechanism has been paralyzed by competing interests of member states who pursue self-interests in blocks /alliances hence recommend for a ratification of her administrative structure.
Ref:
on self defence,
•Nicaragua vs USA 1986-ICJ ruled that US had violated the law by financing, training and providing weapons to the contras- an authority Israel hinges on while carrying out pre-emptive strikes on Iran under the guise that the later supports the Hamas, the Hezbollah, the Houthis to threaten their sovereign security.
•The oil platform – Iran vs US (2003) when US navy demolished Iranian oil installations, ICJ ruled that the attack had not met the definition of “an armed attack” by Iran.
This judgement too established the criterion for judging Israel’s pre – emptive or retaliatory strikes against Iran assets.
By Sammy Gilbert Armado Masinde- Student IRDS.
