How effective is the United Nations in promoting and maintaining world order? HSC Legal Studies - Task 4 The United Nations has been only partially effective in promoting and maintaining world order. Over its 73-year history, the UN has demonstrated that, while it may achieve some successes regarding world order, it also suffers from the arthritis of bureaucracy, as well as the different standards of different nations when it comes to addressing issues relating to world order. Despite limited effectiveness in achieving world order, the United Nations provides effective promotion as it establishes an international benchmark for the standards of world order through its legislative and judicial bodies. This is highly desirable compared to the alternative of nothing. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The United Nations has created and maintained various judicial bodies to maintain world order, which have had a variety of mixed results. The United Nations is responsible for the ICC (International Criminal Court), the Permanent Court of Arbitration, numerous ad hoc tribunals (e.g. the ICTY), as well as other smaller tribunals. The International Criminal Court is highly problematic due to its creation under the Rome Statute (1998), as well as in its practical implementation. The nature of legislation and state sovereignty is that nations can join or not, creating a patchwork of responsibilities between nations. Furthermore, it has obtained 3 convictions since 2002 at a cost of $1 billion, making it highly resource efficient. However, regarding other indictments issued, the ICC has a record of botched investigations, which limits its practical effectiveness. Ugandan human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo said that "the ICC made mistakes from the start with the [Lord's Resistance Army] case", in response to allegations that the ICC had mishandled the case. However, ad hoc UN tribunals such as the ICTY and ICTR have proven to be an effective tool for achieving justice. Since the 1990s there have been 95 defendants in the ICTR and 161 in the ICTY, many of whom have been very influential. The Guardian declared in 2017 that the ICTY had “acquired justice, if not perfect closure, where chaos and murder once reigned”. This is especially poignant given that the masterminds of violations of the world order were responsible, as demonstrated in the cases The Prosecutor vs. Ratko Mladić (IT-09-92) and The Prosecutor vs. Radovan Karadžić, which held senior Serbian leaders responsible. However, it too has been criticized as a “winner writes the history books” perspective on world order issues. Hoare, himself British-Bosnian, writes that 68% of the ICTY defendants were Serbs and that it was a "failure of international justice for all parties". Therefore, the UN judicial instruments for addressing the methods of world order have had variable effectiveness at the level Maintaining world order, however, it must be said that international courts set a benchmark for global standards, therefore they have some effectiveness in promoting world order. United Nations peacekeeping forces around the world have been infamous for mismanagement and have been plagued by bureaucracy, but have managed to achieve some effectiveness in maintaining world order. The Srebreniča massacre has been described as a failure by the United Nations, adue to his inability to adequately allow Dutch forces to operate against the Serbs. The Independent wrote in 2015 that “survivors continue to blame Dutch troops for not doing enough.” In this case, the UN has consistently denied crucial DUTCHBAT airstrikes to protect civilians for fear of reprisals against other UN troops. Furthermore, split-second decisions had to be cleared by New York bureaucrats. This also happened in Rwanda, where the Guardian writes that there is an audio recording of Belgian peacekeepers saying: "there are killings and New York doesn't give a damn." Damn." Furthermore, the command systems were useless bureaucratic and command priorities were confused, leading to the loss of civilian lives On the other hand, the United Nations was successful in East Timor, but whether this was solely the fault of the United Nations is still debated developed in 1999, Resolution 1264 (1999) was passed, creating INTERFET to restore peace and protect the East Timorese. The United Nations had learned a lesson from the horrors of the 1990s and allowed countries with greater vested interests to have. a larger command presence and had stopped making all decisions beyond New York MAJGEN Smith (retired) of the Australian Army wrote that "the reconstruction was exemplary", however, "these conditions for success were rare". . The BBC also wrote in 2012 that the UN response was positive, but “still showed its characteristic flaws”. Thus, the success of the United Nations in promoting and maintaining world order has been partly due to improvements learned since the 1990s. Therefore, the UN recognizes that unnecessary bureaucracy and major errors have hindered the promotion and maintenance of world order through its peacekeeping missions. In recent years, the United Nations has failed to respond clearly to threats to the world order posed by actors willing to change the status quo. Due to deadlock in the Security Council following Russia's invasion of Crimea, the UN has done little to restore world order in the region. Russia's illegal annexation seeks to challenge the hegemony of the United States, which it has enjoyed since 1992. The United Nations Charter (1945) under Article 2(4) allowed Ukraine to defend itself by force, however, it could be argued that the UN should have the right to intervene now under Article 2(7), but cannot do so due to Russia's veto power in the Security Council. Instead, Ukraine attempted to temporarily protect its citizens through force and also Law No. 1207-VII (Ukraine) which protects the rights of those in occupied territories. Furthermore, China has begun to create a new Sinocentric sphere of influence through an expansionist policy in the South China Sea. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Despite the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a United Nations body, ruling against China's expansion in the Philippines v. China case (No. 2013-19) and the UN legislation itself, especially Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in agreement with the Philippines, little more in concrete substance has been done to challenge China. Their Foreign Ministry has openly stated that its illegal actions are “entirely appropriate and legal”. The United Nations has not maintained or promoted world order in this case because it has failed to hold the).). 22/25