the high aspirations of the UN, its practical work and the legitimate expectations of the public. In the twenty-first century, it is vital for the UN to go “as far as possible”. The visionary idea of William Pitt, expressed more than two centuries ago, needs broad public support to flourish in our era.
(Keynote Speech at the UN Forum, convened by the United Nations Association of the United Kingdom, London, 28 June 2014)
←27 | 28→←28 | 29→
Notes
1. 1 Douglas Hurd, Choose Your Weapons, The British Foreign Secretary, 200 Years of Argument, Success and Failure, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 2010. p. 24.
2. 2 For the history of creation of the UN see Stephen C. Schlesinger, Act of Creation, the Founding of the United Nations, Westview 2003.
3. 3 For a more recent discussion of the practice of the UN Security Council, see Chinmaya R. Gharekan, The Horseshoe Table: An Inside View of the UN Security Council, Pearson –Longman, 2006.
4. 4 For a comprehensive overview see Sebastian von Einsiedel, David M. Malone and Bruno Stagno Ugarte, The UN Security Council in the 21st Century, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder-London, 2016.
The Global and Regional in the Contemporary International System
Can the international system function solely through global institutions, such as the United Nations? The answer cannot be yes because the world is too complex for a single type of international organization. A combination is necessary. The founders of the United Nations who met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington DC in 1944 to draft the Charter of the future global organization understood the problem and devised an approach that is still relevant today.
The question, at the time, was whether an effective global instrument of peace could be hoped for and what could be expected from regional security mechanisms. The experience with the League of Nations was disappointing and a regional approach seemed more realistic, and closer to the needs of “realpolitik”.
The result of those discussions and subsequent negotiations was a compromise. The United Nations Security Council was endowed, in Article 24 of the Charter, with the “primary responsibility” for the maintenance of international peace and security. In addition, according to Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, nothing in the Charter precluded the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that they and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The UN Charter established a hierarchy in favor of the global organization, the United Nations.1
←29 | 30→
Much time has passed since the formulation of the quoted compromise and much experience has been gained since then.2 The Charter of the United Nations has generally stood the test of time.
The special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security have been reaffirmed time and again – both in situations dealt with by the UN as well as those addressed by regional organizations.
On the other hand, the notion that the UN Security Council holds primary and not exclusive responsibility for maintaining international peace and security has become better understood. With the evolution of regional security systems and their practice, a subtle rebalancing has started to take place. The emphasis on the role of regional arrangements has become stronger, and thus the idea of partnerships between the UN and regional organizations became more important. The element of hierarchy, on the other hand, has become weaker.
In practically all the recent situations involving threats to international peace and security in Africa, the UN has coordinated its activities closely with the African Union and with several sub-regional organizations. From the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea and in the DRC to situations in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur and, most recently the Central African Republic and South Sudan, different types of cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union as well as with ECOWAS (Economic Community on Western African States), SADDC (Southern African Development Coordination Conference) and IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) have been a vital ingredient in the search for solutions. In addition, the development of legal norms and institutions within the African Union has added to its role and responsibility in dealing with challenges to peace and security in Africa.
New methods and tools of work are being introduced for cooperation between the UN and regional organizations. They include meetings of members of the UN Security Council and the European Union’s Political Security Committee. This has helped to develop the necessary European support for UN peace operations in Africa. Moreover, EU involvement was necessary to complement the efforts already taking place within the cooperation between the UN and the African Union.
In the Middle East, the cooperation of the UN and the Arab League has a long history and has been given a particularly important role in the (admittedly unsuccessful) efforts to stop the war in Syria. With that war coming to an end now, cooperation between the UN and the Arab League will gain additional relevance.
In the Americas, the UN has worked closely with the OAS as well as with the Rio Group, the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) and other organizations to ←30 | 31→address a variety of situations in the Andean region, Central America and Haiti, the latter being probably one of the most intractable situations of the past decades.
In Southeast Asia, the UN has learned much from the experience of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the much appreciated “ASEAN way” in dealing with the situation in Myanmar, which has been on the agenda of the General Assembly for more than two decades, as well as a matter of diplomacy of the Secretary-General. Subsequently it has been placed on the agenda of the Security Council and cooperation with ASEAN continues to be important.3
In the northern hemisphere, the UN and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) have developed a set of useful cooperation models and division of labor. This cooperation has been given the most practical expression in the Balkans and the Caucasus, especially in the cooperation between the respective field presences of both organizations. At the same time, in such broad areas of work as conflict prevention and mediation, electoral assistance, strengthening democratic institutions and promoting human rights, both organizations have learned from each other’s experience.
These are only a few examples as well as some of the most visible cases. It is important to understand that the global system of collective security today functions as a system of both the United Nations and regional organizations. Both segments of collective security are critical. It is never certain which one will take the lead. Only through adequate cooperation and synergy between the
