The United Nations: Institutional Failure to Uphold State Sovereignty

One conception of state sovereignty is widely understood as the non-interference of foreign powers in another state. The norm of sovereignty is broad in scope and encapsulates two primary levels; internal and external. Internal sovereignty is rooted in the principle that all states are free to govern their domestic affairs and have absolute authority over its populace, and resources, free from outside intervention. External sovereignty is the principle of inviolable territorial integrity of a state (Makinda, 1996). Enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, sovereignty as an international norm is critical for global peace and security. Article 2(1) of the UN Charter states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”(UN Charter, art. 2, para 1).

However, after the end of the second World War, and the inception of the United Nations in October 1945, there have been several instances of states violating the territorial and economic sovereignty of other member states. This is a clear violation of the UN Charter and indicates institutional failure in holding its member states accountable. Over the years, the UN has authorised military operations in sovereign states without the permission of their governments like in Haiti and Somalia (Makinda, 1996). At the same time, the UN has also failed to protect its member states from external aggression.

Source: Britannica 44

The United Nations: A Low-Risk Scenario for the EU?

In 2003, the US-led coalition of the willing invaded Iraq, under Saddam Hussein’s government, with the aim of disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, and putting an end to Hussein’s authoritarian regime. But “WMD intelligence proved illusory,” the war lost public support and was overall deemed an unsuccessful mission. Disregarding American motivations behind the war, which many speculate to have nothing to do with spreading the beacon of democracy in the middle east, the operation was never formally authorised by the United Nations Security Council. In 2004, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan went on to say that the Iraq war was illegal. In an interview, he is quoted saying, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” Annan also remarked that the hope is to refrain from any missions like the Iraq invasion which are carried out in the absence of international support and lacking UN authorisation.

Why then, despite a lack of consensus and objections by states including Russia, and France (both permanent members of the Security Council) to the Iraq invasion, it was implemented? The war violated international law, and UN principles while simultaneously setting a precedent for the erosion of state sovereignty. Proponents of Locke’s ideas will argue in favour of the more evolved notion of ‘popular sovereignty, which offsets traditional sovereignty against democratic order and legitimacy. It is predicated on values of justice, and human rights, because it puts forth that, “sover- eignty ultimately derives from the people.” Sovereignty, thus, exists only when the people in a state are not ruled upon arbitrarily, they should be able to exercise freedoms, political or otherwise, and demand accountability (Makinda, 1996). This is often employed as a justification for international states and military coalitions to violate state sovereignty to facilitate the protection of human rights, as was deemed to be the case in Iraq. Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq was found to be in violation of several UN principles and the adoption of UNSC resolution 1441 threatened consequences for Iraq’s failure to comply with disarmament requirements. The Bush administration also drew on this humanitarian defence to rationalise the invasion, portraying the war partly as a means to free the Iraqi people from dictatorial rule.

45

Antara Basu

Source: CFR

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (UN Charter, art. 2, para 4). Considering the Russian invasion of Ukraine is another example of the exceptional failure of the UN to prevent erosion of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this age of diplomacy, a hostile takeover of another sovereign state’s land seems improbable, but Putin’s aggressive military operation challenges this assumption. If the above-mentioned humanitarian de- fence is applied to this situation, the UN does not deliver any concrete plans for intervention beyond economic sanctions. Even though the Iraq invasion was executed without authorisation or Security Council resolutions, Russia’s veto power and global standing make external interference trickier than in Iraq.

After reviewing the two situations above it is clear that there exists institutional failure in upholding the norm of state sovereignty in both case studies. Either the organisation violates its own Charter, or is on standby with effectively very little control over a military attack on one of its members by another. Sovereignty as a norm is ever-evolving to comply with the socio-political needs of the time. During the inception of the UN, sovereignty was accepted widely as non-interference in the matters of other states, given the conditions of war in 1945. Over time, the desire for norms like human rights, and the creation of democratic governments which are accountable, have intensified. This requires a synchronous revamp of existing political principles; state sovereignty is one of them. If the conception of popular sovereignty should govern international relations, it is critical to reflect this change within the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter principle of sovereignty restricts the reinterpretation and widening scope of this norm (Makinda, 1998).

46

The United Nations: A Low-Risk Scenario for the EU?

As long as this inconsistency prevails, it can be manipulated to advance the national interests of powerful states, as many speculate was the case during America’s Iraq invasion. A key challenge to redefining state sovereignty within the Charter is to balance the need for reform with the insecurity of relatively weaker states. The legitimisation of external interference should not result in the arbitrary use of military power, or its overarching threat, by powerful states to further their strategic interests. Until this can be accomplished, military operations like the 2003 Iraq invasion will violate international principles and thus be illegal, even if their legitimacy can be adequately defended on moral grounds.