AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

0
429

ABSTRACT

The study sought to examine how anarchy affects the international system, particularly in the UNSC organ that depicts the realistsā€˜ model of world politics. The study relied on both scholarly literature and key UN documents, particularly the UN Charter to analyze and discuss how anarchy affects the functions and roles of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security in the world. It is an arena where states conduct their foreign policy through the national interest as well as a game of power politics, even at the heart of maintaining peace and security. The study found that even though the UN Charter gives every authority to the UNSC members to determine what threatens international peace and security with some limits, the mandate also inexplicably gives the powerful states the authority to translate or make certain decisions to their advantage, for instance, the use of the veto power. These decisions often lead to major crisis  than promoting international peace, for example, the Iraqi war, the Gulf war, the Libya Crisis, which all escalated into global conflicts and are even yet to recover or achieve stability from the impact caused. The study recommended, among others, the elimination of the use of veto to make the UNSC more effective in its mandate as the organization can resort to decisions based on a simple majority or two thirds voting of all the member states.

CHAPTER ONE RESEARCH DESIGN

       Background of the Research Problem

The United Nations (UN), as an organization of independent states exists with the main aim of ensuring global peace and security. This was vividly expressed by Kofi Annan, the previous General-Secretary of the UN, in his speech declaring that:

ā€•More than ever before in human history, we share a common destiny. We can master it only if we face it together. And that is why we have the UNā€–.1

Consequently, the core obligation of the United Nations Organization (UNO) is the preservation of world peace and security which must be of a legitimate concern for the global community. In contrast to this notion, states within the international system act in pursuance of their individual interests. Thus, the driving force of states relations, irrespective of the stress on cooperation to overcome the daunting challenges confronting the international community in its entirety, is to achieve their national interest.

The UN emerged in 1945 at the height of World War II after the erstwhile League of Nations formed in 1919 failed to achieve its core mandate to prevent international conflicts, leading to the Second World War.2 The UN was born out of the necessity for nations to express their opinions and endorse dialogue cum arbitration of international conflicts, providing a platform for peaceful negotiations. As Keohane and Nye articulated,

ā€•In a world of multiple issues imperfectly linked, in which coalitions are formed transnationally and trans-governmentally, the potential role of international institutions is greatly increasedā€–.3

In its formation as an international forum, the organization was instituted by 51 states in order to forestall international conflicts and wars, forging strategies, resolutions and accords for

conservation of world peace and security. The agreement establishing the organization formulated principles, regulations, the modus operandi and the objectives of the UN as was expressed thus:

ā€•Save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedomā€–.4

Supplementary goals that reign supreme in the agreement is deference for codes of equivalent privileges and self-government as well as intercontinental collaboration in tackling economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems around the globe.5

Currently, 193 states make up the UN with participation in the international organization reasonably accessible by amiable nations that consent to the requirements defined in the existing Charter, and are capable and prepared to carry out these responsibilities.6 Members must have attained the status of sovereignty, meaning the state must be independent in its internal and external affairs. The admittance of any state into the fold of the global organization, the UN, will be effective via a verdict of the deliberative, policymaking and representative organ, the General Assembly (GA), upon the proposal of the Security Council.7

In examining the capacity of this universal organization as a forum for nation states to bring collective issues of the global system to scrutiny, certain limitations have been highlighted, making the role of the UN somewhat contentious.8 This is attributable to the anarchical feature of the international system, as the organization barely constrains states from being self-seeking and wielding their self-interests.9 Researchers, for example, Sophie Crockett and John Mearsheimer, are of the opinion that international institutions only possess inherently marginal authority,

considering the power relations existing between states, thus demonstrating power distribution in the international system.10

Anarchy in international affairs is often characterized by the non-existence of a certain over- arching authority in the global system.11 More specifically, it refers to the absence of central A political power to govern the international system, whilst creating an avenue for an actor to impose order and influence statesā€˜ actions.12 Keohane and Martin add their voices by stating that the purpose for which institutions are created is mainly to address statesā€˜ interests, and that the structural formation of such institutions dependent directly on the existing capabilities.13 Mearsheimer climaxes these assertions that, organizations simply stimulate peace by means of influencing activities of nation-states.14 In his view, organizations tend to be promoters of collaboration in a world that is basically aggressive; whereas in reality, states perpetually utilize these grounds to exploit others.15 To this end, there is a candid expression that the UN does not adjust the egocentric, disordered activities of nation-states.16

Without a central government, the principles of independence and neutrality affirm the salient purpose of UN not to interfere in internal matters of its members. Nevertheless, it can advance negotiations and give nation-states the apparatus or means to end differences.17 Hence, international organizations often find themselves unable to use formulated laws and procedures to administer directly state and non-state actions.18 In this perspective, Powell elaborated anarchy to be a state of nonexistence of agency that superimposes individual statesā€˜ power and authority to resolve disputes and enforce laws. By that, individual states can give their commitments through treaties but no independent authority can impose any form of sanctions and compliance against deviances. The nonexistence of such a supreme authority is termed the ā€•anarchic environment of international politics.ā€–19 Bearing in mind the ostensibly anarchic nature of the

global system20 with self-interested states engaged in power struggle and the UN certainly not a

ā€—world governmentā€˜, there is a vast amount of distrust in the way states deal with each other.

       Statement of the Research Problem

In the absence of a global government, there is a continuous struggle for power, which can set any state on the verge of war with other states. Consequently, each state continuously advances its interactions to maximize relative power capabilities, ensuring its existence and survival, thus through self-help. In consonance with this is the neo-realist argument that global organizations are ā€—incapableā€˜ of controlling state actors as they cannot stop states from acting naturally in engaging in political affairs.21 Deductively, states barely trust and cooperate with one another within the international system, creating a security dilemma under the conditions of mutual insecurity. Consequently, this influences them to put in more effort to increase their security thereby making other nations less secured in gaining relative power.22

States in the international system are sovereign and independent and not obliged to obey any form of ā€—higher authorityā€˜. They often take decisions that could directly or indirectly affect other states in the international system and then possibly create chaos. The UN, for instance, has been

ā€—ineffectiveā€˜ despite its mandate, functions and sanctions often imposed on states. Through this spectrum, the research seeks to find out how the anarchical inherent features of the international system affects the UN in the light of UNSC functions and mandates, why states behave the way they do, and examine the challenges faced by the UN in advancing its efforts to promote cooperation, regulate state behavior and govern the international system.