THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER UNDER THE RULE OF FORCE OR THE UN IN QUESTION

In a world marked by armed conflicts, major humanitarian crises, and growing geopolitical instability, the United Nations remains at the center of debates. Presented as the guardian of global peace and human rights, the UN nonetheless raises an increasingly shared question: does it truly embody the international order founded on law, or is it merely a reflection of the power dynamics between major powers?

Created in the wake of the devastation of the Second World War, the UN carried the hope of a world free from the law of the jungle. In January 1946, the 51 founding states solemnly committed to respecting the sovereignty of nations and the principle of non-interference, a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. This commitment was intended to guarantee legal equality among states, regardless of their military or economic power.

However, the history of the UN reveals a constant discrepancy between proclaimed principles and actual practices. From its inception, the organization has faced the political dominance of the most powerful states, capable of imposing their agenda while escaping the constraints they demand of others.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict illustrates this structural contradiction. Despite decades of UN resolutions calling for respect for international law and a two-state solution, the absence of effective coercive mechanisms, blocked by the exercise of the veto, has stripped these decisions of their substance. International law appears subordinate to strategic alliances in this context.

The intervention in Afghanistan, conducted in the name of global security, revealed the limits of military action without a sustainable political project. After twenty years of international presence, the return to the starting point highlighted the failure of a strategy largely tolerated, if not endorsed, by international institutions.

Genocides, particularly that in Rwanda, remain an indelible stain on the global collective conscience. Despite precise warnings, international inaction demonstrated that the protection of civilian populations remains conditioned by their geopolitical importance.

The Gulf War, followed by the invasion of Iraq, reinforced the idea of a two-tiered international law. Armed interventions were justified by fluctuating legal arguments, showing that international legality can be instrumentalized when strategic interests are at stake.

More recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted the impasse of the collective security system. Condemnations by the General Assembly are met with the powerlessness of the Security Council, paralyzed by the veto power of a permanent member directly involved in the conflict.

Furthermore, repeated interferences in the internal affairs of certain states, whether military, economic, or political, particularly in Latin America or the Middle East, demonstrate a persistent practice of international coercion, rarely sanctioned when it originates from major powers.