Peacekeeper or Bystander?

Since the UN’s founding in 1945, over 250 major conflicts have occurred worldwide. This raises the question: In a world with the highest levels of disputes, since 1946, has the UN really fulfilled its role of peacekeeper, or is it purely a powerless bystander? 

Let’s begin with some context. The UN emerged at the end of WWII as a way to bring states together and prevent further conflicts from occurring. How could it achieve this?

The UN provides a forum for countries to come together, encouraging both independence and cooperation. The idea is simple: if we unite, we are less likely to go to war with one another. Dialogue and compromise can help us all find common goals and bridge disagreements. However, as assumed, this is not always how it unfolds in reality. 

The UN has six principal “organs”, also known as branches, that constitute it. This is the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN Secretariat, and the Trusteeship Council. These organs allow for discussions and issues to be categorised, allowing for more efficient work. 

However, coming together as one, can be viewed by many as unrealistic optimism. In the UN, there is a common term known as, “veto power”, which alludes to the idea that you can deny a decision made. Veto power allows five members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the UK, and the USA - to reject or block any resolution or decision made, even if the other fourteen members vote in favour of it. Thus, decisions made are extremely limited and reliant on the agreement of all five members. 

The Security Council suggests that the appropriate means to be used by concerned parties are solely on the basis of the issue being a threat to international peace and security. However, it has no binding effect on member states (UN, 2007). More importantly, the Security Council is mandated under Chapter VII of the Charter to decide on appropriate actions to be taken when there exists, “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”. Such power of the Security Council involves the use of force, “to maintain or restore international peace and security”.

This veto system in the UN leads to high tensions between already opposing powers, states such as Russia and the US have such opposing systems and ideas, that they constantly block each other (through their veto power), limiting the effectiveness of the UN to tackle issues.

In 2022, Russia vetoed a US and Albania-backed resolution that condemned its annexation of Ukrainian regions, eliminating the idea that Russia was being described as a threat to international peace and security. On the other hand, the US vetoed in March 2024 a resolution requiring a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine, which Russia and China also opposed. 

These examples all allude to how the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are in a constant battle within themselves, decreasing the possibility of any effective actions taking place.

Ultimately, this means that there has been a great need for improvement of UN peace-keeping operations to effectively and promptly respond to numerous crisis situations. This was evident from the UN Secretary General’s (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) recommendation, in his “Agenda for Peace” and the “Supplement” to member states to cooperate with the UN in peacekeeping operations through preparing their troops for rapid deployment with the same training standards and procedures. 

The UN Security Council, though not in all cases, has been able to minimise or prevent conflict across different corners through its peacekeeping operations (UN, 2007). Therefore, the UN as an international organisation has played a paramount role in the maintenance of international peace and security, although not without its challenges. 

Consequently, the veto issue is only one of many problems that arise within the function of the UN. From a realist perspective, as states are run by humans, and they believe humans only act in their self-interest, countries are inherently selfish. Ultimately, if states continue to act in their best self-interest, then it’s extremely hard for the UN to function to its capabilities, as states are less likely to cooperate if it doesn’t seem to be benefiting them. We see this issue come to life in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has increased its attacks, claiming it is targeting Hamas leaders, although the UN and international community have continuously asked it to stop. This shows how Israel prioritises its own national security and goals over any UN say, suggesting that the UN seems almost useless in getting involved and preventing any further conflict. Similarly, if we link this back to the veto power, Palestine is not currently recognised as a ‘state” by the UN, due in fact of veto power from Israel, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States. If we imagine it did become fully recognised as a state, the long years of tensions and conflicts would continuously grow between the state of Israel and Palestine, and therefore they would continuously veto each other - making the role of the UN less and less effective. 

Where do we go from here? 

Although the UN seems to have its failures and is argued by many to, “ineffective” at stopping or preventing conflicts - why is it better to have the UN? 

The UN is a unique intergovernmental organisation that still maintains an important role in seeking diplomatic relations and a base for states to merge and discuss ongoing issues. It is vital for peacekeeping missions, aid and diplomacy. As of right now, September 2025, the UN General Assembly has adopted the “New York Declaration”, which alludes to a resolution for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, calling for the recognition of Palestine as its own individual state, which is currently being supported by 142 countries. If we imagine a hypothetical situation, where this resolution does in fact go ahead, and Palestine becomes a fully recognised state by the UN - it will allow for a decrease, if not an end, to the two year long conflict, which can in fact prove that although the UN can’t directly end or prevent conflicts, it can act as a mediator to ease tensions and provide a platform for states to discuss. The UN also raises global awareness of global issues, and can advise states, for example the New York resolution, which can also be seen as a driving force for peace. 

Putting it differently, the UN has played a great role in the overall peace and security of the world even though it fails to address all issues adequately. Hence, the importance of international organisations (in this case, the UN is obvious though still lacking member states’ commitment to provide necessary support, the level of their interest at stake and the interest of veto powers do put a challenge on the effective operation of the organisation. 

So, is the UN a powerless bystander or is it fulfilling any of its role as a peacekeeper? 

Although the UN occupies a paradoxical position in our contemporary world; it is neither fully powerless nor a perfect peacekeeper. Although the veto power of the Security Council and the self-interest of powerful states often limit its true abilities to prevent or stop conflicts - as we can currently see in Ukraine or with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis - the UN still provides an essential base for diplomacy, dialogue and an attempt at international cooperation. Its resolutions, peacekeeping missions and mediation efforts allude to the idea that it can facilitate negotiations between states with high tensions that would otherwise never cooperate or discuss - even if it can not enforce any direct power on the individual states. Ultimately, the UN may not always stop wars, but it remains a vital tool for holding states accountable and laying the groundwork for peace in such a divided world we are currently living in. I’ll leave you with a question for reflection - perhaps the real question should not be whether the UN is a bystander or a peacekeeper, but whether the world can afford to go without it. Would the world be better with or without the UN? And if without, what is a better alternative?