World Order, Peace and Security

• World order refers to the level of international peace and security and the balance of power in the world.
• Legal measures such as the UN's involvement in peacekeeping, the ICJ, and Security Councils, as well as the role of the media have been somewhat effective in working towards world order.
• The effectiveness of these measures is primarily limited by the principle of state sovereignty, which allows for non-compliance, and by a lack of enforceability.

Peacekeeping

• The effectiveness of UN peacekeeping missions is limited by weak mandates and resource constraints.
• Missions like the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) have facilitated peace.
• Peacekeeping relies on state compliance and the principle of non-force, except in self-defense.
• In the 1963 United Nations Yemen Observation Mission (UNYOM), key parties failed to comply, leading to its ineffectiveness.
• No UN peacekeepers have been deployed in Ukraine or Russia due to the nature of the conflict.
• Russia, as a permanent UN Security Council member, can veto any peacekeepers from entering Ukraine.
• Petro Kotin, head of Ukraine’s nuclear company, warned of risks at the Zaporizhzhia plant, stating, “We would propose to bring this problem to the next level.”
• The UN’s promotion of state sovereignty also weakens its effectiveness.
• The 1994 Rwandan Genocide exposed this flaw when the UN reduced personnel from 2,156 to 270.
• Time Magazine reported Western nations quickly whisked their nationals to safety.
• Peacekeeping missions are hindered by reliance on state cooperation, weak enforcement, and resource shortages.

Security Councils

• The UN Security Council (UNSC) plays a crucial role in global peace but is hindered by the veto power of its five permanent members.
• The UNSC authorized interventions, such as the 1991 Gulf War.
• The Syrian Civil War was undermined by political divisions.
• Russia and China vetoed resolutions condemning the Assad regime in the Syrian Civil War.
• The conflict between the Israeli government and Hamas has demonstrated the UNSC’s inaction, as the United States frequently vetoes resolutions critical of Israel.
• UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned, “The world is facing a moment of peril,” urging decisive action.
• The UNSC’s structure grants disproportionate power to five nations, weakening its ability to respond swiftly to crises.
• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further exposed this flaw, as Russia used its veto to block UNSC action.
• During Syria’s humanitarian crisis, Russia and China vetoed attempts to refer the Assad government to the ICC.
• The Sydney Morning Herald (2012) stated that the veto system is “a great inhibition to the smooth and effective functioning” of the UN.
• Reforms are essential to enhance the UNSC's effectiveness in resolving conflicts.

International Criminal Courts

• The effectiveness of Permanent International Courts is limited by their unenforceability, yet they have had some success in prosecuting high-profile individuals.
• The ICC, established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
• The ICC relies on state cooperation.
• The ICC lacks enforcement mechanisms which undermine its ability to hold perpetrators accountable.
• Omar al-Bashir, former President of Sudan, was indicted for war crimes and genocide in Darfur but continued to travel internationally without arrest.
• Major powers like the United States, China, and Russia have refused to ratify the Rome Statute, weakening the court’s jurisdiction.
• In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but Russia’s refusal to recognize the ICC renders it largely symbolic.
• Mark Kersten states, "Russia has adopted a policy that the Court effectively does not exist."
• The ICC’s successful arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte demonstrates its potential to hold high-profile leaders accountable, despite ongoing challenges.

International Criminal Justice

• Permanent International Courts are largely ineffective in maintaining world order due to their lack of enforceability.
• The International Court of Justice (ICJ), established in 1945, settles disputes between states.
• ICJ rulings are limited by state sovereignty and the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) reluctance to enforce decisions.
• In Nicaragua v. United States (1986), the U.S. disregarded the ICJ ruling.
• The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling deemed China’s South China Sea claims unlawful, yet China outright rejected the decision.
• Philippine reporter Jim Gomes noted, "Despite a 2016 arbitration ruling invalidating China's extensive claims in the region, Beijing continues to defy international rulings and promote its sovereignty." (The Guardian, 2016).
• The Guardian reported that "the Chinese government … will neither acknowledge it nor accept it," further demonstrating the court’s lack of enforcement power.
• International courts cannot compel compliance, so rulings are often ignored by powerful states.
• Without compulsory enforcement mechanisms, such courts struggle to resolve disputes and uphold global order, as demonstrated in the South China Sea and past cases of non-compliance.