Can the UN still keep the peace in a divided world?

Across multiple conflict zones, dozens of active armed conflicts and insurgencies are unfolding worldwide with innocent civilians caught in the crosshairs and lives and livelihood’s upended due to the strategic ambitions of world powers. While it’s fair to question whether the United Nations – an institution established post-world war to preserve global peace and security – is living up to its founding mission, today’s deteriorating security environment demonstrates the urgent need for stronger systems of international governance.

So why do we continue to rely on an institution designed for safeguarding world peace if it often is unable to enforce it? Part of that optimism lies in necessity. Many countries today, particularly small states with minimal leverage or military capabilities, continue to put their faith in the UN’s ability to preserve a degree of international stability. Despite its flaws – the UN remains the only universally recognised organisation tasked with conflict management and diplomacy.

But here’s where the real trouble lies: the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. The UNSC veto remains the most divisive mechanism and the central impediment to achieving global peace. Russia and the United States alone utilised their veto powers eight times on seven draft resolutions in 2024 relating to resolutions concerning the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The last time the UN experienced such a high level of dissent was in 1986 when the competing strategic interests between the US and the former Soviet Union during the cold war produced similar great-power gridlock.

The P5 – who are tasked with the extraordinary responsibility of guiding global policy, are also the same powers who are responsible for recent military escalations, whether in Ukraine or Iran. Much of the criticism surrounding the UNSC’s structure stems from this irony – as the P5 are meant to administer a rules-based international order, they also possess the ability to shield themselves from the mechanisms meant to constrain their behaviour.

Case in point, the recent conflict involving the US and Israel, and Iran.

Following the initial unilateral US-Israeli strikes against Iran, France, the UK, China, Colombia, and Russia called for an emergency UN Security council meeting. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres who was present for the session, urged for restraint to prevent further escalation – stating the initial tit-for-tat retaliation from Iran risked “igniting a chain of events that nobody can control in the most volatile region of the world.”

The current crisis underscores the limitations of the UN’s mechanisms designed to mitigate global crises. The United States, a direct participant in the war with Iran, remains a veto wielding power, harnessing the ability to block any resolution holding it accountable. In that regard, it’s not the UN that’s failing – or a lack of ambiguity within the UN charter, but rather a P5 power operating outside the constraints of a system they helped to establish when it conflicts with their own military or strategic objectives.

In early March, the UNSC formally adopted Resolution 2817 which condemned Iran’s regional attacks with Russia and China abstaining from the vote. Resolution 2817 reiterated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia and Jordan, while criticising attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. The resolution also affirmed the rights of individual and collective defence in response to the Iranian attacks while acknowledging freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, condemning Iranian attacks aimed at restricting maritime navigation.

For China and Russia, their abstentions are tied to the resolution’s language, which they viewed as ‘unbalanced’ and failing to address the broader drivers of the crisis.

More recently, proposed resolutions have been raised by the US and Bahrain in response to Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz, with additional support from the hardest hit Arab Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar.

The draft text called for imposing additional sanctions against Iran – along with ‘other measures’ if Iran continues to impose tolls and attack vessels in the Gulf. The proposed resolution also emphasised the need for Iran to disclose the location of its sea mines and to support a humanitarian corridor that would enable the delivery of aid, fertiliser, and other essential goods to recipients in Congo, Sudan, and Gaza.

The effort is expected to be vetoed by China and Russia, who claim the measures fail to address the broader causes of the conflict. The two nations vetoed similar attempts in early April following US attempts to pass a resolution urging global powers to take defensive measures to safeguard commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, claiming the text was ‘biased’ against Iran, with whom both maintain strategic ties.

Also concerning for China is the text’s invocation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter – which could potentially open a legal pathway for the use of military force should Iran not succumb to US demands.

Decades of geopolitical rivalry and mutual mistrust have contributed to the Islamic Republic’s deep scepticism toward Western-led institutions within the international system. Iranian hardliners and segments of its political elite often view globally accepted rules and norms as reinforcing western hegemony, contributing to resistance against UN inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities.

Proposals continue to be debated on broadening the inclusivity of the UNSC, however this too would require collective backing from the P5. Given the global increase in protectionist and nationalist policies, it’s doubtful we’ll see meaningful reforms any time soon. What is more likely is that countries will continue to strengthen bilateral and regional coalitions to compensate for the paralysis at the global level.

Amid the UN’s inability to project authority or sway Iran’s behaviour in fully opening up the Strait, the UK along with France have taken over the reins, currently leading 40+ nations in a coalition to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Horuz - with one caveat: their defensive approach can only commence once a lasting ceasefire is in place.

The real danger now is the growing erosion of the UN’s credibility. It’s no longer a question of whether the institution can abide by its original mandate – but whether its member states trust that it maintains the political will and collective backing to do so.

Gina Bou Serhal is Director of Trends Belgium Virtual Office & Senior Researcher – Trends Research & Advisory