Revisiting the United Nations Charter: Addressing Obsolete Clauses and Power Dynamics

Avika Shree,

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Abstract

This research article goes through and examines the development and essential changes of the United Nations Charter with some specific attention toward the addition, removal and amendments of the clauses which are mentioned in the charter in the form of Articles Also deals with the benefits of changes and their welfare because there is some clause which makes it less effective and the process become tougher. In addition to it this paper also discusses about the veto power and their membership with all the technicalities and problems which is deal by UN. There is some suggested modification which are crucial for enhancing the effectiveness and responsibility of the United Nation.

Introduction

It was the time of 1941 when London hosted nine administrations which had been forced into exile, this city esteemed metropolis of Britain this had already 22 months of warfare and this can be said so accurately because in this city scarred by bombing the piercing sound of air-raid sirens was a distressingly common occurrence. Virtually the entire continent of Europe had been conquered by the Axis Power and transportation through ships is crucial supplies across the Atlantic Ocean were routinely sinking. Chipping through various difficulties in London and throughout the Allied government and also peoples there was unwavering confidence in the eventual triumph. Later on, June 12, 1914, delegates from Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and General de Gaulle of France convened at St. James' Palace, where they signed a declaration.

The UN Charter can be traced in the essence of Atlantic Charter which was signed on 14 August 1941 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, he was President of the United States of America and also Winston Churchill designated as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This Charter outlined shared principle in the national policies of their respective countries, for the betterment and a strong foundation for future of this world.  The main aim was creation of a overall security and maintaining peace. Finally on 1 January 1942 the Declaration by United Nation held in which 26 states at war with the axis powers including US, UK, China and USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, engaged in the common programme of purposes and principles embraced in the Atlantic Charter in a document which became known as the Declaration by United Nation, later on 21 more states become the part of this declaration.

Just after 3 years as preparations were already been in progress for the San Francisco Conference which was conducted only for those powers which had declared war on Germany and Japan and signed to the United Nations Declaration, were invited to take part.

Article to be Deleted

Overall, an article which can be removed from the UN Charter, it can be Article 53 the Enemy State Clause[i], in the chain of World War II this particular clause permits for military action against certain governments treated as enemy states during the conflict. The article reflects or showcase the geopolitical conditions at that time when the charter was adopted in 1945. As the time changes the things also changes, nowadays it is commonly can be observed as outmoded and no longer relevant to the modern world situation. There is a growing demand that Article 53 should be eliminated from the charter.

Historical context of Article 53

This article was incorporated in the charter just after World War II, stating the great doubt and fears of the Allied powers toward the failed governments. It gives the thrust of power to the regional groups or arrangements to take enforcement action against certain aggressive nation without specific consent of the security council. The main aim was to empower the allied nations to take military action against the 3 nation which were not ready to surrender in WW II which were Germany, Japan, Italy, should they emerge again as a danger to international peace. Although this provision was anticipated to create a legal framework for managing former centre attracted states in the early aftermath of the war when soldiers of fascism and militarism were still fresh.  At that particular time the restrictions in article 53 reflected the geopolitical worries and tensions of a world emerging from the most catastrophic battle in human history.

Obsolescence in the Modern World

In the era of 21st century the enemy nation named in Article 53[ii] (mentioned 3 nation) they only not incorporated themselves into the international community but have also become significant particular in global governance, diplomacy and very important trade. Germany and Japan particular have developed as significant economic and political powers with an structured and strong democratic infrastructures and powerful commitments to international cooperation. Both the nations have abandoned militarism and have become well established governments in terms of peaceful growth and international diplomacy. Keeping hold of article 53 represents no practical function in today’s international legal context. On the contradiction its continuous presence is damaging. This becomes the reason unneeded friction and undermines the fundamental concepts of sovereignty and equality among nations that the UN tries to promote. In addition to it also contradicts with the attitude of reconciliation and collaboration that has been important to post-war world politics.

In relation to international relations although keeping old and unnecessary legislative rules might have unforeseen diplomatic repercussions. This article commonly highlighted by opponents of the UN as an example of the organization incapability to adjust to the changing realities of the global system.

Article to be Amended

The United Nations security council curtail a unique and strong position within the framework of international law, responsible for sustaining global peace and security. However right now the structure notably with regard to permanent membership and the veto power is profoundly anchored in the geopolitical circumstances of 1945 when the UN was founded. Although the change in world is drastic with new emergent powers and developing global issues. This demands a positive change of the UNSC to make it more inclusive and effective. There are two important provision that require modification and that is Article 23 and Article 27[iii] which is concerning permanent membership and regarding the veto authority respectively.  

First of all, article 23 of the charter establishes the composition of the UNSC designating five permanent members that are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States and there are 10 non-permanent members, which are chosen for the period of two year. These five permanent members, frequently referred to as the “P5” were appointed in the wake of World War II because to their key involvement in the allied forces and their global promises at the time. The global Sicario of 2024 seems dramatically different from that of 1945. Empowering countries like Indi, South Africa and Brazil as well as powerful regional actors like a japan and Germany has become very crucial participants in global diplomacy, economics and security. These countries donate to international conflict resolution and economic development underline their importance in the global order. Although they remained barred from the UNSC permanent membership.

Nation like Africa and South America and severely less representation in the council. Africa, home to 54 nations and multiple pressing conflicts and development pressure, lacks a permanent seat, meanwhile south America a region that holds an important role in global energy production and environmental protection is equally neglected suggested Amendment. In regards to make UNSC more representative and effective, permanent membership mandatorily increased to include developing nations and regional delegates. Similarly, in India, Brazil, South Africa and maybe others like as Japan and Germany should be recognized for permanent membership. This permanent seat should be granted to regions that are currently underrepresented notably Africa and South America.

This change can make the security council much representative of modern global conditions rather than being tethered to a power structure that evolved from past in some particular time. Increasing membership would strengthen the council accountability and credibility as there are more nations which wanted to be represented in global decision making. This might be a revolutionary change which can lead to more effective and inclusive solutions to the world’s difficulties as choices can be affected by larger range of viewpoints and interests.

Change in Veto Power

Article 27[iv] deliver the veto power to the five permanent members of the council which allows any one of them to stop any substantive resolution (Russia has used veto power for 94 times in favour of India) even if the majority of the council are in support but any one has decided to do veto then that particular topic could not hold position in the session. This arrangement was made on the presumption to prevent the major nations from coming into direct combat with each other in the wake of WW II. Moreover, throughout the ten years, the veto has often been attacked for make it handicap on vital topics and for defending the limited national interest of the P5 members at the price of global peace and security.

The use of the veto has no limits as mentioned an example above and, in this situation, where the UNSC has been unable to act on crucial matters, e.g. vetoes by permanent members have slowed efforts to address current hostilities in Syria, the conflict between Israel and Palestine in this serious issues or climate change and human rights violations. This has harmed the credibility of the UNSC and created a sense of inefficiency and inequality in global governance. This power empowers any one of the permanent members to unilaterally stop a resolution, and as mentioned even if the great majority of the international community supports it. This system not only creates and gridlock on vital problems but also weakens the participants of other nations and regions in decision- making processes.

Suggestion on Amendments

Changing the veto power is important to increase the security council capability to act fast and very effectively react on global concerns. A reform which can effectively works on it might entail needing multiple permanent members to invoke a veto multiple time. E.g. rather than single P5 member being able to stop a resolution a veto can only be used if at least two or three permanent members agree. It would also decrease the one-sided nature of the veto and represents greater unanimity among the fixed members.

The other option is to give maximum powers to the general assembly to overturn a veto in specific circumstances, denotable in cases with its significant worldwide support for a resolution. For example, in the general assembly the two thirds majority overturn a veto, keeping in mind that the will of the world community is not hurtled in any way and not been apposed by single nation interests. This way will offer a check and balance on the use and power of veto which make the council more responsible to the larger UN membership. Now the other one is making compulsory a need for openness and rationale when someone is using a veto might assist ensure that it is covered properly. Permanent members may be obliged to publicly represents their reasons for vetoing a resolution which would create larger accountability and minimize the chance of vetoes being used for simply self-interested motives.

Making changes in Article 23 & 27[v] it would also have some effect for the future of the United Nations and world government. By increasing the number of members, the council would become more clustered and inclusive and better suited to confront the complexity of the new modern era. Likewise, by having changes in the veto power the council would become more functional and more responsive toward the global crises. Changes would defiantly restore the legality and credibility of the UNSC because many governments have observed the long criticism of the council for being under representative and ineffective. With this decision typically showcase the narrow interests of a few major powerful states instead of the larger demands of the international community. Through making the council more accountable these reforms would help restore trust in the UN as a capable organization and also solving worlds concerns.

Conclusion

At the end it concludes that the UN was specifically drafted after World War II and to tackle the upcoming challenges in geopolitical circumstances during that era nor or less it has given the current structure to intricate and swiftly changing world scenario. There are some certain clauses such as article 53 and the composition of the council are rapidly becoming advanced. Whereas Article 53 well known as enemy state clause had become outdated at that particular time when the countries it once targeted in which the country was Germany, Japan and Italy now it plays crucial roles in uprising peace in the world and maintaining security.  On the elimination it would bring the UN values in line with the contemporary reality in promoting more international cooperation. At the same instance it is also very critical in the reform of the security council because article 23 and 27 which maintain permanent membership and veto power. Increasing and emphasising permanent membership to include emerging nations and low representation areas such as Africa and South America would make the council more dynamic and effective at world level. Similarly adapting the veto power would prevent one nation from unilaterally back logging resolutions, enabling more effective and representative decision making.

References

[i] “United Nation Charter”

[ii] “United Nation Charter”

[iii] “United Nation Charter”

[iv] “United Nation Charter”

[v] “United Nation Charter”