The United Nations - the UN, that organisation which you've probably heard of, but aren't sure what it involves. A good summary is that it is the multi-national organisation, formed in 1945, which now represents all 193 countries1. The UN has an enormous mandate, seeking to prevent world wars2 and improve the situation of humanity in numerous ways - whether that be improving human rights or the economic condition of its members, or providing aid when needed. The 193 countries are bonded together (in theory) inside the UN by their common signing of the UN Charter.
The United Nations does seem overwhelmed by bodies, but it technically has six main organs. These are: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice and the Secretariat. These are the bodies that were actually created within the UN Charter when the UN was formed. Thus each organ has reached its 70th birthday and look set to continue going strongly3.
As you may already have considered, they are called 'main organs' purely because they were created first, not because they are necessarily the most important - most people will have heard of UNICEF (The United Nations Children's Fund) and UNESCO (The United Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organisation), which are not main organs, but will never have heard of the Trusteeship Council, which is. These other bodies will be covered in another Entry in this project.
This Entry will attempt to explain the purpose, make-up, history and various actions of the six main organs.
The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the replacement for the Permanent Court of International Justice that was created by the League of Nations in 1922 before it fell apart in the run up to World War II. The ICJ's remit can best be described as two things: a country vs country court for contentious issues; or an advisory body to give legal opinions on various issues submitted by countries or UN bodies. It is the only main organ not based in New York - instead it is placed in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the former headquarters of the League of Nations.
In theory, anyone who joins the UN accepts the ICJ as having jurisdiction over their country. One of the Security Council's tasks is to enforce ICJ decisions. However, to minimise wastage of time by taking a case and then having a country ignore its ruling (a particular problem in relation to a country that could veto any Security Council ruling), it requires any party to a case to actually make it law to comply with any ICJ ruling.
There are 15 judges from different nations on the ICJ bench, selected in rotation, and they vote to decide each case. However to encourage countries to take their cases to the ICJ, any party gets to provide their own judge to the bench. This is to allow each party to have their side of judicial opinions heard, although presumably the votes from those two judges will cancel each other out.
Contentious issues cover several things, such as border disputes or violation of treaties. Advisory opinions can cover anything in international law, but the most notable case was on the legality of nuclear weapons - a case in which 22 states argued their case in front of the court.
The ICJ is a sufficiently complicated body that it shall feature in far more detail in an Entry later in the project, including a number of the more interesting and controversial cases ever heard.
The Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has two main roles. One is to act as the coordinating body for all the UN bodies that aim to improve standards of living in the world - the UN estimates that these bodies make up 70% of its work. Some of these secondary bodies are huge, and they include the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Development Program, UNICEF and UNESCO amongst others. In this sense all the additional bodies can be derived from ECOSOC's authority. The second purpose is to formulate policies on how to deal with international economic problems to help improve the global economic situation.
This organ is made up of 54 member countries, drawn from around the world to represent regions proportionally. The organ as a whole meets for only four weeks a year, but various secondary meetings are set up during the year, with particular focus on those with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
There has always been some controversy about the architecture of the ECOSOC chamber in the UN headquarters, as created by Sven Markelius, namely that the ceiling is unfinished - all the pipes and ducts have been left uncovered. Sven claimed that this was to remind delegates that their work to improve the situation of the world's population was useful, but always unfinished. However persistent rumours claim that this was a justification produced after the construction of the chamber ran over budget.
Concerning the ECOSOC itself (rather than its various sub-bodies), it has been increasingly accused of providing little benefit. Global economic policy is primarily set by the richest countries in the forms of the G84 and the G20. The ECOSOC has increasingly attempted to represent global economic policies of the smaller countries, but with little success. This is particularly exacerbated by the divisiveness within the Council. Without the ability to present a united front, there is little ability to persuade either the larger countries or the 139 countries without representatives on the Council to implement anything.
The Trusteeship Council
The Trusteeship Council is a body created to handle one of the failures of the League of Nations. Before the UN was founded, numerous areas that were deemed not ready or capable of becoming independent countries were placed as 'mandates'. They were handed to various important countries who were supposed to guide them along. Needless to say, not a single 'mandate' made it to statehood during the League's existence. When the UN was founded, it was thought better that a reasonably neutral body should guide them instead.
At the formation of the Trusteeship Council, 11 'Trust Territories' were placed under its care. As the breakdown of colonialism continued, another 59 regions would pass through its care. The Council, over the subsequent 50 years, moved all 70 territories to independent status, concluding in May 1994. With its task done the Council became inactive, existing only on paper.
Slightly bizarrely, the Council cannot simply cease to exist. It still has a President and Vice-President5. To truly dispose of the body would require an amendment to the UN Charter - this is deliberately a rather challenging process, and has been deemed too much work to formalise this de facto shut down. However, it has been agreed that the next time there is any change of the Charter, this will be folded in.
It is hard to say how well the Council did in its role - certainly it managed to take its territories and move them towards statehood, which is something the League of Nations never managed. However, many of these states would seem to have proved incapable of acting as stable states, let alone fair and free ones. To decide whether it succeeded really depends on where you choose to set the goalposts - would holding onto the territories until they were more 'ready' have had the same effect as what the Council was created to prevent?
The permanent body of the United Nations, the Secretariat consists of 16,000 staff in 175 different countries around the world. These personnel are hired world-wide and fill the positions of all the United Nations bodies. Coupled with 14,000 peacekeeping troops currently on loan to the United Nations, the Secretariat consists of 30,000 personnel.
The Secretariat is under the control of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is picked by the General Assembly, with a candidate recommended by the Security Council (which means no permanent member can dissent to them). They serve a maximum of two five-year terms. Thus far, only one Secretary-General - the excellently-named Boutros Boutros-Ghali - has not been selected for a second term. Of real importance is to not think of the Secretary-General as the President or Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations. Instead think of him6 as the Chief Administrative Officer, keeping the United Nations in working order for whatever the countries want to do with it.
Judging the Secretariat on effectiveness is tricky. Before starting it should be borne in mind that it is one of a kind - fulfilling a mix of charitable and administrative functions, but doing so in a vast number of countries with the enormous administrative difficulties that causes.
Generally the Secretariat should be positively judged - think of all the good each of its well-known bodies has provided. Then think of the additional co-ordination it allows between countries. Most of the failures that can be ascribed to the UN are because it is slow to act, or it fails to resolve conflicts sent to it - but these are political aspects, which are supposed to be dealt with in other organs, not the Secretariat. The Secretariat has been accused at times of being clunky, and slow to alter its structure and purpose in a changing world - attacks that certainly are partially justified - however the nature of the body does somewhat impair any decisive move; no country's civil service operates under such constraints.
One final note: both inside and outside the peacekeeping forces, hundreds of UN personnel have died. The risks have grown wildly since 2001. This is primarily because, when present in a region where two countries are at conflict, forces can normally be trusted not to deliberately attack UN workers; however, most of the conflict post Cold War is by non-State-Actors attacking governments, and they are willing to take whatever actions they think might aid them. The second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld himself died in a plane crash, now thought to have been because the plane was shot down. This means that 1/8th of the leaders of the Secretariat have died in its service.
The Security Council
The Security Council is the first of the two organs in this Entry that most readers will have heard of, at least in passing. Almost certainly the most criticised United Nations body, it possesses a range of unique rules, powers and remits. A mix of successes and failures over the last 70 years mean it has always been full of controversy.
The first thing to consider is what the Security Council is for. The Charter of the United Nations gives four goals for the UN - the first of which is to prevent war. It is to the Security Council that the General Assembly primarily deputises this goal. The Security Council is required to ensure international peace and security. To do that it must prevent aggressive acts by states that might threaten that goal.
Second is the well known membership controversy. The Security Council is currently made up of 15 nations. This includes 10 non-permanent member states7 who serve for two year, non-repeatable terms, selected on a geo-political spread. The Council also contains the five permanent members of the Council: the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, the Russian Federation8 and the People's Republic of China. Each member has one vote, and nine members must agree on anything in order for the Council to act. However if any permanent member dissents then their 'No' vote overrides any agreement between the others. The obvious thing to note here is that the United Nations was formed by the major winning powers of World War II. This means that more powerful nations today do not possess the same power as they might otherwise expect. One final note is that the permanent members are the only powers legitimately allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to possess nuclear weapons.
In order to fulfil their goal, the Security Council has a number of powers granted to it. It can enact these purely by itself, needing no agreement from other bodies or countries. These can be summed up by the term 'sanctions', but that covers several varieties. Below are the usual possibilities, some or all of which might be enacted after a warning to cease and desist aggressive action is ignored.
Travel Embargo - frequently used as a 'lower-level' sanction either by itself or part of a great set. Not the literal blockading of a country that it might imply, it is instead an embargo imposed against responsible figures in the country who are then unable to leave. Since these are usually dictatorial figures who like to travel widely, this sanction has more might than it might otherwise seem to.
Diplomatic Sanctions - this is to separate a country off from the international community. Were the severest form of this to be enacted then every embassy of the targeted country would be shut. However shutting off diplomacy is viewed as counter-productive to resolving global tensions, so this is not used against recognised countries. Instead it can be seen in action against forces that seek recognition as a legitimate state. One example of this would be Turkish Cyprus, which claims to consider itself a country, but is incapable of gaining recognition from any country (other than Turkey) due to this ruling.
Economic Sanctions - this is the commonly seen one, as it is seen to have power without the need to deploy troops and risk a full-out conflict. There are endless tiers and variations here of just what type are imposed. One style is targeted economic sanctions, imposed upon the same responsible figures that would be subject to a Travel Embargo - it usually involves freezing their assets and preventing any international finance with them. On a country basis, freezing of assets and expulsion from the international markets can take place. Some trade might be permitted, to allow for certain purchases, in an attempt to pressure a country to comply without causing its collapse.
Military Action - the variations here are particularly notable. One is the difference between voluntary peace-keeping and involuntary peace-keeping. The former has at least one party in the conflict calling for UN intervention to enforce a ceasefire zone between the opposing forces. The latter, as might be expected, doesn't. While commonly referred to as 'peace-keeping' there are actually different forms, including peace-making, peace-enforcing and peace-keeping. While it was the case in the past that the latter was more passive, essentially just occupying a zone between the two sides, whereas the others took more aggressive roles, the lines have blurred, with most actions requiring all types.
This action is reasonably rare for a few reasons. These include the desire not to risk significant numbers of lives as well as the concern that the deployment might actually make the situation worse. However the most common by far is because of the politics of the Security Council, and that is why the Council is so constantly criticised. Many conflict zones around the world happen to affect the interests of at least one permanent member, who might veto any dramatic action. This is primarily the reason that Africa sees most of the peacekeeping missions, while the Middle East has so few.
Unlike the League of Nations, which really struggled at times to produce peace-keeping forces, the UN Charter actually requires states to pony up forces if required by the Security Council. However, such demands are not necessary, since sufficient forces are contributed voluntarily. Additionally, representation on the Security Council generally requires a degree of fulfilling your share, with the medium and large countries providing significant numbers of forces. The P5 permanent members will generally also make up any lack. These numbers are also heavily bolstered as the Security Council almost always works with a local organisation (the African Union is a common partner, for example) who will themselves provide substantial assistance.
The failures of the Security Council are generally better known, but that is hardly surprising - failures always are. Additionally, the nature of peace-keeping means it is not complete success, nor is it itself capable of succeeding - the job of peace-keeping is to buy space and time for diplomacy and the work of other agencies to permanently improve the region.
Namibia, Mozambique and Guatemala, amongst several others, were significant successes where an operation stabilised the regions sufficiently for them to create their own government. The UN is currently deployed in numerous countries, and even where little progress is being made to permanently solve the problems of the regions, security is being provided for other UN operations. One interesting example is the stabilisation of Somalia. Deemed a failed state, consisting only of warlord-controlled territories, this African Union-led, UN-backed, operation has successfully stabilised the capital, Mogadishu, and swathes of the country. This has led to the first fragile steps towards progress that actually look like they could last, unlike other attempts made in the interim.
One final area of note is that numerous 'important questions' considered by the United Nations require both passing by the Security Council (with its vetoes) and a two-thirds majority by the General Assembly. This includes Charter alterations and the recognition of new countries. It is these requirements that mean Palestine and Taiwan are unable to become full states, despite being de facto countries.
The General Assembly
The theoretical top body, the General Assembly (GA) is the full body of the United Nations. With a One-Nation, One-Vote system, in theory Palau has as much authority as China. Of course, each major country will be able to influence its bloc of allies. Despite this, one surprising fact is that most resolutions considered by the General Assembly are actually passed by full consensus. Also, while its resolutions are not legally binding, unlike those of the Security Council, topics or countries that the General Assembly focuses on gain a certain weight that draws attention to them and encourages work towards resolution.
Additionally the GA acts as the world's premier 'open diplomacy' venue. While important hidden negotiations occur between embassies and in Geneva, in the GA representatives of a country must justify their actions, and reasons for failure to negotiate, in front of every other nation. As well as placing pressure on parties to negotiate, it can itself provide an additional source of potentially successful negotiations. An example of this is how during the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations took place both in back channels and on the floor of the General Assembly.
The GA has powers that can work around the Security Council. These can come in several forms, whether it be by taking actions that lie within the GA's sole remit or by taking actions usually controlled by the Security Council alone.
An example of the former is in relation to Palestine. In 2014 in the Security Council, the USA vetoed Palestinian membership of the UN. In response the GA used its powers to vote Palestine as a full-observer state instead, which grants many of the same rights as possessing full membership.
An example of the latter is the almost publicly unknown resolution 'Uniting for Peace'. This allows a vetoed Security Council resolution, trapped in deadlock, to be brought to the General Assembly. The GA may then commit many of the actions normally seen in a Security Council resolution. These might involve declaring a country's actions illegal (such as apartheid in South Africa), employing economic sanctions, or even deploying peace-keepers. The latter two are especially controversial: the GA can't impose binding resolutions on member-states, so instead it asks nations to impose voluntary sanctions on countries. Military force was in fact the one thing not permitted under the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution. The use of the resolution has actually been fairly evenly used against the various permanent members - the first use of it deployed peace-keepers to cease the fighting after the Suez Canal Crisis, a resolution that had been vetoed by the UK and France. The extreme stretching of the interpretation of the UN Charter that is required in 'Uniting for Peace' means this has rarely been used, but its use has been suggested in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in recent times, with little enthusiasm to do so.
The final use concerns those 'important questions' mentioned earlier, which require both the Security Council and the General Assembly to agree. While nothing agreed by the Security Council has ever been failed in the GA, this is only because several ideas were dropped by the Security Council under threat of failure in the GA. One very obvious example is when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was selected - the GA had demanded that the next Secretary-General come from Africa, and so the Security Council chose a candidate accordingly.
So is the General Assembly effective? It was never intended to do a great deal of the work of the United Nations but now meets on most days of the year and considers a large number of questions that are asked both by itself and by junior committees. It also helps set the direction of the tasks that the Secretary-General and the other organs will then try to implement. However it often seems in thrall to the Security Council and does less work than many of the bodies it created. Perhaps the key tasks of the GA were to be the last space for diplomacy and to consider those 'important questions'. It seems to have an increased amount of success in both those arenas - it is a hard body to judge in its own right since it is so tied up with the success of the United Nations as a whole. As to what your view of the whole United Nations organisation is, for now this Researcher leaves that to you, with the hope that now you have more understanding of where some of the blame and praise truly lies.