IT was in high school when my four friends and I chanced upon a “roundtable discussion” on the United Nations in one of the universities that line the streets of Manila’s University Belt. The program was meant to highlight the vital role of the UN in preserving peace and preventing wars. It was in observance of UN Day sometime in October 1978–still the height of the Cold War.
We stepped into the school’s auditorium determined to prove that the UN was becoming irrelevant and failing in its mission. We took turns arguing this point, primarily taking note that the structure of the UN itself and the exclusive and lopsided powers given to the five permanent members of the Security Council–namely, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China–was largely to blame. When one of these five member-states exercises its veto power, the UN is held inutile. Under such rules, a decision made by the four permanent members and 10 non-permanent members will have no effect, and will not be binding when one of the five vetoes it.
In the end, we were given medals for being the “best discussants.”
Fast forward to 2024–79 years since the US founding on the heels of the Second World War. Calls for reforms reverberate at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. One after another, heads of state and foreign ministers who spoke at the GA highlighted the failures and shortcomings of the UN and its institutions in addressing world conflicts, humanitarian crises, and economic inequalities.
Nearly all pointed to the lopsided power given to the five permanent members of the Security Council.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pointed out that the Security Council was designed by WWII victors when many countries were still under colonial rule. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan noted that the UN has become increasingly dysfunctional and ineffective in fulfilling its founding mission, stressing that international peace and security are too important to be left to the whims of “five privileged countries.”
Reforms should consider the needs of all countries and not just give more power to a few, said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
Our Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo said the UN “must rise to the occasion with an agenda that fosters equity, justice, international peace and security, development, and adopts processes that are inclusive, transparent, responsive and effective.”
He called on the UN to expand membership in the Security Council and improve its working methods to create greater transparency and accountability.
Close to home, former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in a recent speech before the Rotary Club of Manila, cited the need to “change our world order to eliminate the use of force, violence and wars in interstate relationships.”
Said Puno: “Our present world order does not work because it is founded on power imbalance–only a handful of powerful countries dictate its direction, more specifically the five countries that wield the veto power in the UN Security Council. It excludes the legion of powerless nations in decision making.”
But beyond this, ambiguities and conflicts in the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the UN Charter have proved detrimental to mankind’s search for international peace and have led only to the proliferation of interstate wars.
Article 2 of the UN Charter binds all members to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State and to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means.”
But Puno said this should be read in conjunction with Article 51 which recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN member until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” It requires members to report any measures they have taken in the exercise of this right of self-defense so that the Council can take the necessary action to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Puno said, “It will require volumes to dissect the problems States have encountered in the implementation of these provisions and why they failed to prevent wars among States.” There is controversy on the meaning of “armed attack” that will trigger the right of self-defense.
Explained Puno: “Literally, it contemplates the use of ‘armed’ force. Some States, however, take the view that economic measures or non-violent actions that can infringe on other provisions of the UN Charter or customary international law on State obligations should justify the invocation of the right to self-defense.”
There is also the controversy on whether there is a minimum threshold on the scale and effects of the armed attack. “There is what is known as ‘accumulation of events’ theory or needle-prick theory that posits the view that several minor attacks or incidents may be accumulated and used to justify the exercise of the right of self-defense,” Puno said.
Then, there is the controversy on the timing of the armed attack. Said Puno: “Again, literally read, the right of the self-defense can be exercised only ‘if an armed attack occurs.’ The 9/11 attack on the United States as well as the availability of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups gave birth to the concept of anticipatory self-defense. According to this school of thought, an imminent use of force, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, can trigger the right of self-defense of the targeted state. In other words, the targeted State need not wait for the armed attack to occur.”
With cyber warfare and artificial intelligence within everyone’s fingertips, interpreting and applying these provisions of the UN Charter will become more and more problematic in the years to come and render the UN and its Security Council helpless, if not useless.
The challenge, according to Puno, is creating a new world order from the present world of new disorder.
