Eighty Years of the United Nations: Power, Paralysis, and the Path Forward -By Henry Onyedika Adibe, LL.M

Introduction

On the 24th of October 2025, the United Nations marked its eightieth anniversary. While the UN marks this auspicious and historic moment, 80 years of existence, the world finds itself at an inflection point. Born from the ashes of global war and guided by the solemn promise to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” the UN has long stood as the symbol of multilateral hope and collective security. However, eight decades later, questions about its relevance, fairness, and effectiveness particularly that of its most powerful organ,  the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remain as pressing as ever.

Having recently completed a dissertation on “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council Mechanisms in Combating Genocide,” I find the UN’s 80th anniversary a moment not only of reflection but of reckoning. The UN has achieved remarkable feats in peacekeeping, humanitarian coordination, and norm-building. Yet, it also remains shackled by structural inequities and political paralysis that prevent it from fully realizing its founding ideals.

This article explores the UN’s journey through its strengths and weaknesses, focusing on the UNSC as the pivot of international peace and security and proposes realistic reforms for an organization that must adapt or risk irrelevance.

Eighty years on, the United Nations continues to embody the most ambitious experiment in global governance in human history. Despite its imperfections, the UN has carved out indispensable roles in maintaining a measure of international stability, codifying norms of human rights, and advancing sustainable development. This piece will discuss and ponder on Conflict Prevention and peacekeeping, Norm-Building and Human Rights Architecture, Development and Global Solidarity, The Paradox: Weaknesses and Structural Limitations, The Crucible: The Security Council and the Genocide Dilemma, The Path Forward: Reforms for a Relevant UN, Conclusion: A Choice between Renewal and Irrelevance.

1. Conflict Prevention and Peacekeeping

Since 1945, the UN has deployed about 70 peacekeeping operations across the globe. While the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) stand as testaments to success, others such as the failures of United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) and Bosnia, remind us of its limits. Peacekeeping remains one of the UN’s signature achievements: a unique multilateral tool that, despite resource constraints, has often proven more cost-effective and legitimate than unilateral interventions. UN peace operations have evolved from traditional ceasefire monitoring to multidimensional missions involving nation-building, electoral assistance, and disarmament. This evolution demonstrates adaptability, even if success remains uneven

However, credible findings have emerged that peacekeeping mission cannot prevent conflict. This was seen in UNSC resolution 872 and 918 (Rwanda) wherein peace mission under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter failed to prevent genocide. Therefore, to prevent or halt conflicts, the UN must ensure its resolutions are anchored on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

2. Norm-Building and Human Rights Architecture

The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the subsequent proliferation of international treaties such as the Genocide Convention (1948), the Convention Against Torture (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine (2005) demonstrate the UN’s normative power. The establishment of the Human Rights Council and mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review has institutionalized human rights monitoring in ways unthinkable in 1945.

The UN’s specialized agencies ranging from WHO to UNESCO have also fostered unprecedented cooperation on global health, education, and culture. The COVID-19 pandemic reaffirmed both the necessity and the fragility of multilateral coordination. 

However, the UN is often challenged with the tension between legal realism (law in practice) and normative theory (law as a moral force). In practical terms, there is urgent need to streamline how political interests, state sovereignty, and international norms interact especially within the UNSC framework.

3. Development and Global Solidarity

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) illustrate the UN’s ability to articulate a shared vision for humanity’s progress. Though uneven in implementation, these frameworks have shaped global policy discourse, mobilized funding, and guided national development strategies.

For developing nations, the UN remains a vital platform for mobilized funding and advocacy especially in areas like conflicts, climate change, decolonization, and gender equality. 

4. The Paradox: Weaknesses and Structural Limitations

Regardless of its lofty goals, the UN’s weaknesses are profound and, at times, paralyzing. The gap between ideals and outcomes is nowhere more evident than in the operations of the UNSC, the institution charged with maintaining international peace and security (See Ch V to VIII of UN Charter). Notwithstanding the structure, components, roles, duties, responsibilities and powers of the UNSC, its effectiveness as a credible and effective organ that can prevent or halt conflicts has been put to test in many situations. The ineffectiveness of the UN (UNSC) is often caused by the Veto and the Tyranny of the Few, Selective Humanitarianism, Bureaucracy and Institutional Inertia.

1. The Veto and the Tyranny of the Few

The veto power held by the five permanent members (P5) namely the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China remains the defining feature and Achilles’ heel of the UNSC. Conceived as a pragmatic compromise in 1945 to ensure great power participation, the veto has too often become a tool of geopolitical obstruction, thus elevating political and economic interests over humanitarian considerations.

In my research on UNSC mechanisms for combating genocide, the veto emerged as the single most consistent barrier to timely and decisive action. From UNSC resolution 872 and 918 Rwanda (1994) to UNSC resolution 1556 Darfur (2004–present), the veto has repeatedly shielded perpetrators, paralyzed humanitarian responses, and eroded the UNSC’s legitimacy.

When mass atrocities unfold, and the UNSC cannot act due to veto or threat to use veto, the UN’s credibility as the guardian of peace withers. The paralysis over Ukraine and Gaza illustrates how the UNSC’s structure reflects a 1945 world order, not a 2025 one.

1. Selective Humanitarianism

The UN’s interventions have often been criticized for inconsistency, swift in some cases, absent or failure in others. The contrast between UNSC resolution 1264 East Timor (1999) and the inaction during the Rwandan genocide and Darfur crisis reveals a moral and operational double standard.

Credible findings have shown that power politics dictates which crises merit “action” and which are deemed “internal affairs” or “mere conflicts”. This selectivity undermines the universality of the UN Charter, undermines the UNSC’s effectiveness and fuels perceptions of bias, especially among Africa and Global South nations.

iii. Bureaucracy and Institutional lethargy

The UN’s structural and institutional inertia stifle agility and innovation. Decision-making is slow, accountability mechanisms weak, and coordination across entities inconsistent.

While reforms under Secretaries-General Kofi Annan and António Guterres have streamlined certain processes, the UN remains a complex, hierarchical institution often ill-suited to respond rapidly to emerging crises like genocide, cyber warfare or climate-induced migration.

The Crucible: The UNSC and the Genocide Dilemma

The UNSC’s failures in preventing genocide remain among the darkest chapters of the UN’s history. Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur illustrate how political divisions and procedural rigidity can render the Council impotent in the face of mass atrocities. Why the UNSC cannot muster the moral courage to collectively call a crime by its name remain a puzzle!. Throughout the period of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur (ongoing), the massacre of over two million Igbo people in the Nigeria war of 1967-1970 and recent crises Israel/Gaza, Russia/Ukraine, the UNSC refrained from using the word genocide in its resolutions.

While genocide appears to be a heavy word for the UNSC, empirical studies including those by scholars such as Hurd, Power, Chandler, Weiss, and Cortright demonstrate that UNSC mechanisms like resolutions, sanctions (arms embargoes), and humanitarian intervention mandates can be effective only when anchored on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, accompanied by political will and coherent enforcement.

The problem is not a lack of tools, but a lack of commitment. Sanctions without monitoring are mere symbolic gesture; resolutions adopted under Chapter 6 instead of Chapter 7 are hollow and translate to weak UNSC mandates. The Council’s credibility depends on its consistency in applying international norms, not just its capacity to pass resolutions.

Evidently, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, endorsed in 2005, was meant to bridge this gap. Yet its implementation has been fraught, often accused of being a pretext for selective intervention. Still, R2P represents a milestone: a recognition that sovereignty cannot shield crimes against humanity, a testament that sovereignty comes with responsibility.

The Path Forward: Reforms for a Relevant UN

As the UN climbs the eight floor, the question is not whether it should exist, but how it must evolve to survive the next century. Reforming the UN especially the UNSC is no longer optional; it is existential. Reforms envisaged here are both legal and structural reforms which include: Reforming the UNSC, Strengthening Preventive Diplomacy, Empowering the General Assembly, Digital and Climate Governance, Accountability and Leadership.

1. Reforming the Security Council

• Expand membership: The UNSC’s composition must reflect today’s geopolitical realities. Including emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Asia and African representation would enhance legitimacy and regional balance.
• Restrain the veto: Initiatives like the French-Mexican proposal and the ACT Code of Conduct call for voluntary veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities. Making such restraint a formal obligation could transform the UNSC’s responsiveness to genocide and war crimes.
• Increase transparency: Greater consultation with member states, regional organizations, and civil society would democratize decision-making and rebuild trust.

2. Strengthen Preventive Diplomacy

The UN must pivot from reaction to prevention. Investing in early warning systems, mediation support, and data-driven risk assessment could avert crises before they escalate. The Peacebuilding Commission and the Office on Genocide Prevention should be better funded and politically empowered.

3. Empower the General Assembly

When the UNSC is deadlocked, the United Nations General Assembly through the Uniting for Peace (U4P) mechanism should assert a stronger moral and political role. Although non-binding, GA resolutions can mobilize legitimacy and galvanize coalitions for action. 

4. Digital and Climate Governance

The UN’s next frontier lies in addressing transnational challenges like cyber security, artificial intelligence governance, and climate-induced displacement. These issues transcend borders and require multilateral frameworks that only the UN can convene.

5. Accountability and Leadership

The Secretary-General’s office should be empowered to act as an independent moral voice, not merely a servant of member states. Strengthening internal accountability and ethical oversight will also be essential to maintaining public trust in an era of disinformation and populist backlash against multilateralism.

Conclusion: A Choice between Renewal and Irrelevance

Eighty years after San Francisco, the United Nations stands at a crossroads. Its successes preventing global war, codifying human rights, and advancing sustainable development are undeniable. Yet so too are its failures: its inability to prevent genocide, its paralysis over major conflicts, and its susceptibility to power politics.

The UN’s continued relevance will depend on its willingness to adapt its institutions to the realities of the 21st century. Reform will not come easily; vested interests and geopolitical rivalries will resist change. But as history shows, multilateralism, however imperfect, remains humanity’s best defense against chaos. At the just concluded UNGA 2025, the UN SG Antonio Guterres said, “we must and we will overcome”. Commenting on the gains of the weeklong UNGA 2025, he noted: “it is time for leaders to turn their words and promises into actions that match the gravity of the challenges our world faces. We have to continue our work together and carry this momentum forward- from gridlock to action, from division to solidarity, from promises to real, lasting progress”. The UNSC remains the world’s legal conscience, but conscience without courage achieves little. The effectiveness of the UN lies not in its design, but in its political will to act when humanity calls.  The choice is ours. The time is now.

Henry Onyedika Adibe, LL.M (International Law)