There is a discussion into the effectiveness of the United Nations and its ability to resolve conflict. There are two main definitions for conflict; International Armed Conflict and Non-International Armed Conflict. International Armed Conflict is attributed to conflict between recognised states often over border disputes between territories while Non-International Armed Conflict is often known as civil war between factions. The United Nations was created in the wake of the Second World War to prevent conflict and ‘maintain international peace and security’ as set out in Article 1 of the UN Charter [1]. Therefore, it’s main aim is prevent International Armed Conflict and Non-International Armed Conflict through peaceful means. This is orchestrated though its 193 members which have signed up to it’s Charter and participate in the General Assembly and its Security Council who preside over security and peace, by issuing resolutions. To answer this question, I will be assessing multiple case studies for International Armed Conflict and Non-International Armed Conflict to determine the effectiveness of the UNs actions to enable me to bring about a reasoned answer to the question.
For International Armed Conflict you could say that the UN is effective at resolving conflict between states. For the Falklands conflict when Argentina invaded and occupied the British soverign Island on the Friday the 2nd April 1982, this was a clear and easily recognised act of aggression against British Sovereignty. Therefore, under the self defence Article 51 of UN Charter, ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security’ [2].
The British invoked this article under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 to claim the right of self-defence and prevent the loss of territory. Therefore, you could say that the United Nations is effective at resolving conflict between states because it gave legitimacy to the British right to self defence whilst delegitimizing the Argentinian government for not seeking diplomatic means for its territory dispute. This enabled the conflict to resolved quickly through both kinetic action, such as the controversial but strategic sinking of the ARA General Belegrano which reduced the Argentinian navy threat as it’s ships remained in port as a result of this, and non-kinetic action such as the European Economic Community (EEC) imposing economic sanctions on Argentina in an attempt to reduce the war effort. Without the United Nations involvement, the Falklands conflict could have been drawn out for longer and much costlier.
However, you could also say that the UN is not effective at resolving conflict between states. Still looking at the Falklands conflict, the UN may be effective at the short term consequences of conflict but effectively resolving the issue also includes dealing with the consequences following any action. Since the conflict in 1982, it took until 1990 for diplomatic talks between the two nations to resume. These talks have become increasingly strained since the renewed Argentinian claim over the islands in 2006 ‘reignited by a row over fishing licenses’ [3]. This has led to the further deterioration in Argentinian-British relations, with Argentina seeking ‘vast ocean area’ including the ‘Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands’ due to their location on the continental shelf which exceeds the 200 nautical mile economic exclusive zone of the Argentinian coastline [4]. The United Kingdom protested this claim, and as a member of the United Nations Security Council it would be able to use its power of veto against a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
This shows that the United Nations is not effective at resolving conflict between states, even though the islands have been left in relative peace since 1982 the underlying problem still exists with Argentina dismissing the Islanders referendum with 99.8% of the population wishing to remain part of UK sovereign territory [5]. Although the United Kingdom hasn’t used its powers of veto since the situation in Panama, 1989 its position of a permanent council member will prevent any UN backed Argentinian claims over the islands, therefore reducing the diplomatic capability of the United Nations and thus it’s ability to resolve conflict.
The Falklands conflict is a useful case study because it provides clear reasons for and against United Nations involvement. This is only possible because of the clear actions by international recognized states which enabled the United Nations Security Council Resolution to be put forward. However, it is more difficult to when actions of the states or the states themselves are difficult to recognize. Under the formal definition of International Armed Conflict from Common Article 2 of the Geneva conventions ‘In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance’ [6].
However, in the modern technical age with the 5th Generation of warfare, being cyber warfare, the UN Secretary General Antonio stated ‘What is worse is that there is no regulatory scheme for that type of warfare, it is not clear how the Geneva Convention or international humanitarian law applies to it’ [7]. With no clear comparison to conventional armed conflict it is difficult to declare what is and what isn’t conflict and so an act of war. This makes the UNs job of presiding over international conflict much harder, and without the supposed rules of cyber warfare being declared makes the UN ineffective at resolving conflict until this is resolved.
Further to this, the Russian Annexation of Crimea showed the limits of the United Nations and their ability to resolve conflict. The official Russian statement was that ‘little green men’ were simply Ukrainian self-defence groups who had obtained their uniforms and equipment from shops [8], whilst NATO’s official statement was that they were in fact Russian troops. They claimed the only troops they put in Ukraine was special forces to protect for protecting the people and enabling the referendum to happen. As a result, the Russians vetoed the Security Council Resolution. This shows a failure of democracy within the United Nations to prevent international conflict, with the weak point being the United Nations Security Council. Its members can influence the United Nations and the resolutions put before it, so that only matters that are dealt with are to their liking.
On the other side of the coin, there is Non-International Armed Conflict. This is defined under Article 3 of the Geneva Convetions as ‘armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties’ [9]. Most notably is the Syrian Civil War, raging since the Arab Spring in March 2011 with protests of the growing discontent with the Assad Regime and being fought by multiple factions within the State. This is not limited to the Syrian government and its state forces, Sunni Arab rebel groups, Kurdish fighters and more notably the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). There are also outside groups and states fighting and assisting their allied factions. Their have been several peace talks led by the United Nations during this time but the fighting still continues.
Some say that the United Nations has been effective at resolving conflict within Syria. Following the United Nations Security Resolution 2303 of April 2012, the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) was set up to monitor a ceasefire of armed violence by all parties and support the Joint Special Envoy’s, Koffi Annan, six-point plan for peace to be set up [10]. This was a joint plan accepted by the Syrian Government to promote peace and end the violence. This proposed plan was hopeful, however Government violence continued and the Free Syrian Army retook its defensive positions. As a result the plan fell through and violence continued however it proved hopeful that further talks, negotiations and ceasefires would be made.
There was another partial ceasefire between February and July 2016. This was led by the United States of America and Russia within the United Nations Security Council and passed Resolution 2268 which resolution ‘calling for a ceasefire of hostilities and a grant for access to humanitarian workers to ease the suffering of the people in Syria’. The new Special Envoy for Syria, Stephan de Mistura, said ‘It is potentially, a historic junction, to bring an end to the killing and destruction and to start a new life and new hope for the Syrians.’ [11] The ceasefire didn’t include ISIL and enabled the Syrian Government with assistance from Iran and Russia to retake Palmyra from ISIL. Although the ceasefire started to unwind come July 2016, the United Nations managed to achieve some success in resolving and minimizing conflict within Syria.
However, how can you measure how successful the United Nations is in resolving conflict. Is it how long the peace lasts for, the amount of casualties or the financial cost of war? All of these can be attributed to conflict, and in the above cases the cease fires did provide momentary peace and allowed humanitarian efforts, notably the United Nations Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) which manages the international humanitarian response within Syria to provide some support.
Therefore, you can also say that the UN has been ineffective at managing conflict within Syrian. By only managing to mediate failed ceasefires shows that the success achieved by United Nations has been severely limited. Despite the Conflict happening within the borders of Syria, the involvement of both Western forces and Russia has further complicated the issue. It has halted any significant diplomatic response to the civil war due to the vested interest by the Security Council members. Most recently Russia vetoed a ‘US drafted resolution to renew a international inquiry into who is to blame for chemical weapon attacks in Syria.’ [12] This was it’s fifth veto of chemical weapons resolutions in Syria of 2017. As a result, the attacks launched by Western Forces onto the Assad Regime were done without United Nations Security Resolution that would have legitimized the attacks. This again proves the United Nations ineffectiveness at solving deep humanitarian issues within the conflict