Is the UN an outdated body?

The United Nations is an Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) set up in 1945 to maintain international peace and security after World War II (1939-1945) and was committed to by 51 countries to promote social progress, human rights and higher living standards, which has gradually evolved into a political forum of 193 member nation states in 2014. The UN was founded on the basis of the outdated and unsuccessful League of Nations in 1920 after the events of World War I, the goal being the same as that of the United Nations.

The United Nations logo, based on the Olive Branch which
represents the co-operation of member states in terms of its
security and peacekeeping around the globe.

There are 5 current components of the United Nations; the General Assembly is a proactive deliberative organ, being the only body of the organization whereby every member state has equal representation; the Security Council is made up of 19 members with 5 permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and the UK) which formulate resolutions to peace and security issues, international sanction and military force, a problem being the permanent members ability to veto any resolution; ECOSOC or the Economic and Social Council which co-ordinates the management and activity of the 14 UN socio-economic agencies; the Secreteriat provides results to the UN based on research, studies, information and facilities and the International Court of Justice - the primary judiciary body responsible for the trial of war criminals.

The effectiveness of the UN is frequently called into question by critics, but is the United Nations outdated? Firstly, with a emphasis on the spread of democracy, and more countries embracing the ideology, it's become ever apparent that the United Nations do not operate to reflect this form of co-operation. An example being Jacob Zuma's claims that the IGO is "undemocratic" and might have "by now outlived it's usefulness." There is also significant evidence supporting it's undemocratic nature in the modern day, post World War II. For instance, the only democratic organ of the UN being the General Assembly, all other parts of the organization are based on an unfair voting and power system, mostly criticizing the powerful role role of the US in decision making to flex it's muscles, taking a vitally important stance on international decision making.

On the other hand, the United Nations has been successful in it's contribution to humanitarian aid and initiatives providing help for those in countries with high rates of poverty and struck by disaster with the help of ECOSOC and the World Food Organization (WFO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this is a way in which the UN is still effective in solidifying the interdependence and co-operation of it's member states, as it promises to provide help to any country within it's sovereignty. Also, the 'Millennium Development Goals' look to help the population and peoples of individual states rather than maintaining power and influence with all countries agreeing to achieve goals by 2015 of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and ensure a global partnership for development. This helps to further develop the support network for the rise of human rights in countries suffering from humanitarian issues, poverty and civil war, spreading the ideology of democracy.

An image showing tents provided by the United Nations to Syrian Refugees in 2013, as they described humanitarian aid
is required for over 7,000,000 people who were under threat by the Al-Assad regime.

 Furthermore, the undemocratic nature of the UN extends into the vetoing power of permanent states on the Security Council. This means that France, UK, China, Russia and the US have the power to dismiss any of the other proposals made by the other 10 members. This is made even more problematic as the permanent members of the council are polarized in their ideologies and their stances on global affairs. For instance, when the Security Council led by the United States was voting on the decision of intervention in Syria during the 2013 Civil War, the opposition was led by China and Russia against the proposal. This meant that ideas that may be important to the security of the countries within  the United Nations cannot be upheld with a veto from only one country. This causes a deadlock in decision making which means that motions are difficult to put forward without rejection.

The United Nations is also a basis for which all countries are interconnected and still interdependent with other countries emphasized by the Cobweb Model, and from a Liberalism viewpoint, this can help to create a harmony of interests within a global scale and reduce the risk of war and conflict, instead looking to negotiations, debates, discussions and sanctions. The UN also benefits from it's status of extraterritoriality which means it's exempt from any local laws which makes for an ease of decision making in some respects and the judiciary of war criminals means that this body works in a way that can help, where local laws cannot.

Ultimately, it is evident that in most instances the United Nations has been unsuccessful or not fulfilled it's goals, clear in the ever increasing prevalence of wars between both civilizations and member states, showing that the main goal of peacekeeping is largely ineffective as involvement in conflict is based on realist ideas of egoism, selfishness and nationalism. However, it could be argued that the UN is still a significant power and constantly evolving in terms of it's regards to soft power and how we must adapt with the rise of globalization and democratization. For instance, the success of the body in terms of it's humanitarian aid, efforts in human rights, equality, education, world hunger and poverty cannot be denied. Based on these aspects is could be surmised that the importance of the hard power of the UN has been taken away by military alliances such as NATO but left a platform for human development.

Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics

Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.

Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.

Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).

In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.

Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.

Rise of The State and the Nature of State Centric International Politics

The Rise of the State is a development of the world that has taken centuries and is still a concern in modern politics. However, the beginning of this concept started back in the 1500's. To set the scene, life and politics in the 16th Century would be very different. There were no boundaries or maps drawn up and people were less connected and knew less about the outside world, it was not a matter of concern. The development of the State could said to be a result of globalisation and the issues it creates. But, in the 1500's there was less structure to a country, with no governments, the country relied on both the Feudal Lords and the Monarchy which led to major differences in practice of laws etc. throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Firstly, a state is described as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." while a nation state is of a similar description but emphasizes the "unity of the population by factors of the nation, for instance language or descent." The former began specifically in Europe where Henry VII was a notable figure in English history. His victory at the War of The Roses in 1485 and his role as King resulted in a development of the nation state as he looked towards the beginning of foreign policies and alliances, trade, and the separations of power so beginning the rise of the English nation state and changed the way states began and interacted. Furthermore, 7 years later in 1492 it followed that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled the Muslim's from the country and consolidated Spain as a state. The first Russian nation state was created by Ivan The Terrible by 1584, when an absolute monarchy was created in France in the late 17th to early 18th Century, a 'dominant power' was founded in Europe. By the late 19th Century, the states of both Italy and Germany emerged as new nation states.

In 1648, The Treaty of Westphalia was established developing one of the first maps of Europe, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty of state over internal affairs legally. This Treaty not only ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) within the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years War (1568-1648) between the Dutch Republic and Spain. Held in Osnabruck and Munster (modern day Germany) the treaty involved around 194 states including Kingdoms of France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and many other territories. As well as allowing the independence of Sweden from Austria and the Netherlands from Spain, the Treaty also noted the importance of a states authority and sovereignty over it's own territory and disallowed the interference of other states in internal matters, therefore, strengthening the idea of the nation state and propelling state centrality further towards the modern day.

A Treaty of Westphalia era map of Europe as sovereign
 states are created in 1648.

 This is the point where State-Centric Politics come into action as it is decided that a state has the ability to govern it's own people with legitimacy without state intervention from other nations. The term 'state centric' is based on an approach that identifies "International relations that the main participants in the international arena are states and that decision making processes are done by the states as the active actors."

As study of modern Politics became more established a number of theories and models were created to record and exemplify how states interact as they develop and grow as powers and nation states. For example, the 'Billiard Ball Model' founded in the 20th Century is supportive of 'global interdependence' and is a realist theory, it determines that the distribution of power among states is relative to a pattern of conflict and cooperation between nation states. The Billiard Balls translate as hard shells that do interlink only touching each other, with only leaders and officials as points of relation and contact. Despite there being common legalities and formalities between states, it has been noticed that some states are simply more powerful than others. This is called the billiard ball model due to the fact that balls collide and deflect with different effects. However, this idea is under pressure and is debated with the emergence of superpowers and globalisation, interdependence is prevalent as states begin to rely on each other increasingly, based on the influences of economic power and trade, nuclear weapons and military and the introduction of deadly diseases and sources of non-renewable energy in some cases.

The idea of interdependence and global groupings has also been highlighted as a viable and increasing approach to global politics, the 'Cobweb Model' is an important development that has put the 'Billiard Ball Model' on the back burner as outdated. The metaphorical cobweb indicated that nation states are closely connected and rely on links to one another to establish strength and power as a nation state. This is evident through global groupings, particularly that of the relationship between the state and intergovernmental organizations (IGO's)  and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as the UN, G7, EU, NATO which often revolve around international decision making and distribution of global wealth and power, this has becoming very important in a constantly developing world that changes in patterns of both these factors.



The evidence shown based on approach to global politics models and nation states and treaties throughout history are all contributing factors to how the world has moved forward politically and globally and how the development of nation states, leading up to how the interconnected states work today, is an engine for the globalized world we live in today. This is clear in the links between global powers, global patterns of co-operations and conflicts and the global ties and groupings affected by this.