On November 20th, the United Nations Security Council, the principal organ of the United Nations entrusted with maintaining international peace and security, introduced a resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Fourteen members of the fifteen-member council voted in favor. One member, the United States, voted against it. The resolution was thrown out.
Seems fair to you? Well, this is par for the course at the UN Security Council. Five permanent members (P5)- China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and France- can veto any resolution, immediately discarding it. The significance of this is heightened by the fact that the Security Council’s resolutions are binding, unlike the more representative General Assembly, whose resolutions are merely recommendations. In the past, the Security Council has passed binding resolutions authorizing dozens of peacekeeping operations to address conflicts in the Balkans, Angola, Somalia, Haiti, and other countries.
Unfortunately, history has shown that the P5 will leverage their position in the Council to block a resolution that threatens their interests, as Russia did regarding a February 2022 Security Council resolution that would have demanded an end to the Ukraine war. More recently, Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling an end to the civil war in Sudan. Since the inception of the Security Council in 1945, a veto has been cast 323 times; out of these, Russia has wielded the veto 159 times, the United States, 93 times, China, 21 times, and the United Kingdom and France, 32 and 18 times, respectively.
To enhance the P5’s accountability to other UN countries, the UN General Assembly recently passed a resolution urging the veto-casting member to provide an explanation for their decision. This resolution harks back to the 1950 UN General Assembly “Uniting for Peace ” resolution, which provided the General Assembly with the opportunity to address any matter pertaining to international peace that has paralyzed the UN Security Council.
“Great power” capture of the global landscape is also apparent in nuclear disarmament issues. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires nuclear weapons states, which include the P5, to negotiate the complete disarmament of their nuclear weapons. Despite this mandate, now nine countries have nuclear weapons and these countries are upgrading their “strategic nuclear forces,” in defiance of the NPT. Unsurprisingly, these same countries unanimously oppose the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The TPNW was borne out of non-nuclear weapons states’ frustration with noncompliance with NPT, by prohibiting any country party to the treaty from possessing nuclear weapons.
Then, there is climate change. Despite embracing green energy more, the world’s top polluters, including the United States and China, are still burning carbon dioxide at an unsustainable rate which threatens to raise global temperature increase to above the 1.5 degree Celsius limit set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This means that the worst effects of the climate crisis will not be averted. Furthermore, the fact that powerful countries like the United States have openly defied international climate treaties like the Paris Accords- which the United States withdrew from in 2020 but rejoined in 2021– undermines international support for climate action. Unfortunately, with the re-election of Donald Trump, the United States is likely to drop out of the Paris Accords again, while China may assume a greater role in global climate leadership.
Furthermore, the recent COP29 conference in Baku is seen by many climate activists and governments in the Global South as a failure, albeit a step in the right direction. Wealthy countries agreed to commit $300 billion a year by 2035 to aid developing countries in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and transitioning to clean energy, which is far from the $1.3 trillion annually for climate financing that developing countries were pushing for. It’s ironic that the burden will be felt mainly by small island states and developing countries in the Global South that have contributed least to the crisis.
To address this climate injustice, the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu initiated proceedings with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2023, requesting an advisory opinion regarding the legal obligations of states with respect to climate change. While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding on countries, the ICJ’s ruling will hopefully set a precedent regarding international action to address climate change.
It’s clear that the big power-dominated international order is unsustainable. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ decision to move the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest to complete catastrophe we’ve ever been, has highlighted the importance of constructing an international system characterized by political equality and social and economic justice. The actions detailed above- creating the TPNW, involving the ICJ in climate matters, holding the P5 accountable to the General Assembly, and proposals for comprehensive Security Council reform are a definite starting point.
However, we must treat not just the symptoms but also the underlying disease: gross global power imbalances. This requires strengthening international law and modifying and/or establishing global institutions. Civil society organizations like Democracy Without Borders and Citizens for Global Solutions advocate for establishing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which would allow the citizens of the world to directly elect their UN representatives. This Parliamentary Assembly would eventually be empowered to, in conjunction with the UN General Assembly, pass universally binding resolutions regarding global issues. Such an assembly in the UN system would accord currently overlooked countries, concentrated in the Global South, with much more decision-making power than they currently have, building a United Nations that truly serves all of humanity.
Other possible adjustments to the structure of global politics to ensure true political equality include ensuring the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which the United States is currently not party to. We should also strengthen the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which the LAW not War campaign is focused on. In addition, we could establish an International Court for the Environment to settle cases pertaining to the environment and climate change.
Big power domination of our global politics is not merely an international relations issue. It is a matter of social justice, economic justice, and political equality on a global scale. It’s about if we are to live on a livable planet and build a sustainable future for future generations. It all starts with constructing a more just international order that answers to all of us. The time to start building is now.
Jacopo DeMarinis is a Master of Science student in Peace and Conflict Studies at Ulster University.
