ith thousands dead and millions displaced in Ukraine, Europe is now in the throes of its most acute refugee crisis since the Second World War. Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilian population and infrastructure have yet again exposed major weaknesses in the rules-based international order. The ability of the UN to act as the guarantor of international peace and security is being called into serious question.
The UN’s Charter signed in the closing days of the Second World War begins with a determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war while reaffirming fundamental human rights, dignity and equality among people and nations large and small. A lot of effort will be required from the international community to realize this resolve and stop the ongoing carnage.
On 25 February, Russia took advantage of a fundamental design flaw in how the 15-member Security Council functions, exercising its permanent member veto on a draft resolution that would have censured its military aggression toward Ukraine. Russia’s government exercised the arbitrary veto powers available to the five permanent members of the Security Council – in a clear conflict of interest while it was also presiding over the Council’s rotating monthly presidency. Actions like this raise questions about the Council’s purpose, since its primary task is to maintain international peace and security.
On 2 March, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution to condemn Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine. More than two-thirds of all UN member states – 141 countries – supported the resolution. Only five countries– Russia plus Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria – voted against the resolution, and these are countries whose leaders are responsible for committing some of the gravest human rights abuses on the planet. But a further 35 states chose to be bystanders by abstaining. Countries that chose not to oppose Russia’s aggression in violation of the UN Charter by and large are countries with poorer government-civil society relations and significantly worse civic space conditions than those that voted to censure Russia.
These trends also played out at the UN Human Rights Council, where a resolution was passed on 4 March establishing an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate violations of human rights in the context of Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine. Although 32 of the 47 Human Rights Council members voted for the resolution it begs the question of why the others failed to back action.
Human Rights Council members are expected “to uphold the highest standards in the protection and promotion of human rights,” but an analysis of their records in the defense of civic freedoms paints a sorry picture. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory platform that rates civic space conditions in every country, six of the Human Rights Council’s 47 members are ranked in the ‘closed’ category and have the worst possible civic space conditions. In these countries – Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya and United Arab Emirates - the mere expression of democratic dissent can endanger your life or get you jailed for a long time. A further 28 countries – a majority of members – have serious civic space restrictions being ranked in the ‘repressed’ and ‘obstructed’ categories. This can only hamper the reputation and effectiveness of the world’s premier human rights body.
Further, the inability of UN censure to bring an end to the hostilities by Russia almost a month into the conflict is eroding trust in the UN. Its leadership needs to be vocal in its condemnation of the invasion as a threat to the rules based international order and should consider going to Kyiv as a tactic to stop the bombardment.
The continuing devastation in Ukraine, with thousands of avoidable deaths and needless displacement of millions of people, necessitates serious introspection. The international community needs to learn the lessons. There are five key things they can do differently.
How the International Community Can Do Better
First, the UN’s top leadership and state diplomatic delegations accredited to the UN need to double down on demands for accountability for governments that routinely abuse human rights norms. Putin’s extreme nationalist regime has for years persecuted civil society, independent media, political opposition, and those who express democratic dissent. Its blatant abuse of UN Charter principles and violations of international humanitarian law should result in diplomatic isolation by UN member states, suspension from UN bodies and international investigations. As part of isolation efforts, states should end all commercial relationships that benefit Russia’s military infrastructure as it is involved in committing war crimes.
Second, pressure needs to be put on the permanent members of the Security Council by other states and non-state actors to voluntarily abdicate their arbitrary veto powers. Selective use of the veto by the United States, Russia, and others have hindered efforts to maintain international peace and security in the past. This is a problem the international community can no longer afford to overlook.
Third, governments of countries that have abstained from or opposed resolutions censuring Russia’s invasion should work to ensure they are being responsive to public opinion ahead of further action at the UN. They could do so by initiating parliamentary debates and citizen dialogues. While the impact of these measures may be limited in one-party authoritarian states such as Cameroon, China, Cuba, Laos, and Nicaragua, they could reveal alternative viewpoints in electoral democracies such as Bolivia, India, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania.
Fourth, the international community must address the politicization of the response to human suffering by states that tend to vote on perceived short-term interests rather than principle. Double standards in how states have responded to recent wars, such as those in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gaza, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere are eroding the very foundations of the international order. Responses to war and peace talks to end hostilities should, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1325, feature much more involvement from women – who bear the brunt of suffering in any conflict.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, now is time to rethink how the UN operates. State-centric, bureaucratic ways of functioning insulate decision-making from the suffering experienced by communities around the world. Several sensible ideas such as a code of conduct to guarantee integrity of public information have been proposed by the UN’s Secretary-General in the recent Our Common Agenda report. These ideas need to be backed up by better approaches to civil society participation and people’s representation, to bring more grounded opinions into the UN, along with measures to ensure strict compliance by states with international law and UN Charter principles. Incremental change is no longer an option.
a global affairs media network
Putin’s War and the Future of the Rules-Based International Order
A wide view of the Security Council Chamber as Filippo Grandi (on screen), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, briefs the meeting on the situation in Ukraine 02/28/2022. UN Photo/Loey Felipe.
March 22, 2022
The United Nations' inability to rein in Russia's aggression toward Ukraine calls not only the UN's efficacy but the whole rules-based international order into question. CIVICUS Chief Programs Officer Mandeep Tiwana lays out how the UN and its member states can do better.
W
ith thousands dead and millions displaced in Ukraine, Europe is now in the throes of its most acute refugee crisis since the Second World War. Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilian population and infrastructure have yet again exposed major weaknesses in the rules-based international order. The ability of the UN to act as the guarantor of international peace and security is being called into serious question.
The UN’s Charter signed in the closing days of the Second World War begins with a determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war while reaffirming fundamental human rights, dignity and equality among people and nations large and small. A lot of effort will be required from the international community to realize this resolve and stop the ongoing carnage.
On 25 February, Russia took advantage of a fundamental design flaw in how the 15-member Security Council functions, exercising its permanent member veto on a draft resolution that would have censured its military aggression toward Ukraine. Russia’s government exercised the arbitrary veto powers available to the five permanent members of the Security Council – in a clear conflict of interest while it was also presiding over the Council’s rotating monthly presidency. Actions like this raise questions about the Council’s purpose, since its primary task is to maintain international peace and security.
On 2 March, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution to condemn Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine. More than two-thirds of all UN member states – 141 countries – supported the resolution. Only five countries– Russia plus Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria – voted against the resolution, and these are countries whose leaders are responsible for committing some of the gravest human rights abuses on the planet. But a further 35 states chose to be bystanders by abstaining. Countries that chose not to oppose Russia’s aggression in violation of the UN Charter by and large are countries with poorer government-civil society relations and significantly worse civic space conditions than those that voted to censure Russia.
These trends also played out at the UN Human Rights Council, where a resolution was passed on 4 March establishing an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate violations of human rights in the context of Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine. Although 32 of the 47 Human Rights Council members voted for the resolution it begs the question of why the others failed to back action.
Human Rights Council members are expected “to uphold the highest standards in the protection and promotion of human rights,” but an analysis of their records in the defense of civic freedoms paints a sorry picture. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory platform that rates civic space conditions in every country, six of the Human Rights Council’s 47 members are ranked in the ‘closed’ category and have the worst possible civic space conditions. In these countries – Cameroon, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya and United Arab Emirates - the mere expression of democratic dissent can endanger your life or get you jailed for a long time. A further 28 countries – a majority of members – have serious civic space restrictions being ranked in the ‘repressed’ and ‘obstructed’ categories. This can only hamper the reputation and effectiveness of the world’s premier human rights body.
Further, the inability of UN censure to bring an end to the hostilities by Russia almost a month into the conflict is eroding trust in the UN. Its leadership needs to be vocal in its condemnation of the invasion as a threat to the rules based international order and should consider going to Kyiv as a tactic to stop the bombardment.
The continuing devastation in Ukraine, with thousands of avoidable deaths and needless displacement of millions of people, necessitates serious introspection. The international community needs to learn the lessons. There are five key things they can do differently.
How the International Community Can Do Better
First, the UN’s top leadership and state diplomatic delegations accredited to the UN need to double down on demands for accountability for governments that routinely abuse human rights norms. Putin’s extreme nationalist regime has for years persecuted civil society, independent media, political opposition, and those who express democratic dissent. Its blatant abuse of UN Charter principles and violations of international humanitarian law should result in diplomatic isolation by UN member states, suspension from UN bodies and international investigations. As part of isolation efforts, states should end all commercial relationships that benefit Russia’s military infrastructure as it is involved in committing war crimes.
Second, pressure needs to be put on the permanent members of the Security Council by other states and non-state actors to voluntarily abdicate their arbitrary veto powers. Selective use of the veto by the United States, Russia, and others have hindered efforts to maintain international peace and security in the past. This is a problem the international community can no longer afford to overlook.
Third, governments of countries that have abstained from or opposed resolutions censuring Russia’s invasion should work to ensure they are being responsive to public opinion ahead of further action at the UN. They could do so by initiating parliamentary debates and citizen dialogues. While the impact of these measures may be limited in one-party authoritarian states such as Cameroon, China, Cuba, Laos, and Nicaragua, they could reveal alternative viewpoints in electoral democracies such as Bolivia, India, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania.
Fourth, the international community must address the politicization of the response to human suffering by states that tend to vote on perceived short-term interests rather than principle. Double standards in how states have responded to recent wars, such as those in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gaza, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere are eroding the very foundations of the international order. Responses to war and peace talks to end hostilities should, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1325, feature much more involvement from women – who bear the brunt of suffering in any conflict.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, now is time to rethink how the UN operates. State-centric, bureaucratic ways of functioning insulate decision-making from the suffering experienced by communities around the world. Several sensible ideas such as a code of conduct to guarantee integrity of public information have been proposed by the UN’s Secretary-General in the recent Our Common Agenda report. These ideas need to be backed up by better approaches to civil society participation and people’s representation, to bring more grounded opinions into the UN, along with measures to ensure strict compliance by states with international law and UN Charter principles. Incremental change is no longer an option.
