Kazim AlamHobbled by its failures to prevent back-to-back wars in recent years, the United Nations stands at a crossroads on its 80th anniversary.
Established after World War II to ensure sovereign equality of states and stop the use of force in international relations, the UN’s lofty ideals have increasingly been undermined by its own structural flaws.
Critics argue that some of its key constituent bodies — the Security Council (UNSC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — have failed to deliver on their mandates.
From the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza to the exchange of missiles between Israel, Iran, and the US, the UN’s failure to prevent conflicts in recent years has fuelled calls for urgent reforms.
A world bigger than five
Among global leaders, Turkish President Erdogan has been a vocal critic of the UN’s lopsided structure that favours big powers against the rest of the countries.
His oft-quoted phrase, “The world is bigger than five,” perfectly captures the UNSC’s oligarchic structure, where the five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US — wield veto power, often paralysing action on critical issues.
Erdogan’s call resonates with the Global South, which sees the UNSC as a relic of a post-World War II order that no longer reflects today’s geopolitical realities.
“The UN has many lacking points since it is an organisation of the 20th century, which signifies the victorious powers of World War II,” Helin Sari Ertem, professor of international relations at Istanbul Medeniyet University, tells TRT World.
She says the UNSC’s permanent members have failed to represent the diverse geographies and cultures of the 21st century, rendering the body inadequate for modern challenges.
The UNSC’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza is an example of this failure. Despite Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that has killed over 56,000 Palestinians since October 2023, the UNSC has been hamstrung by vetoes, particularly from the US, resulting in largely performative condemnations.
Mustafa Yetim, professor of international relations at Eskisehir Osmangazi University, tells TRT World that the oligarchic structure of the UNSC is undermining the global body’s legitimacy and effectiveness.
“The UNSC’s responses have often been limited to generic and symbolic condemnations, falling short of concrete action,” he says, while pointing out the Council’s inability to address wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Earlier this month, the US vetoed for the fifth time a Security Council draft ceasefire resolution in order to protect Israel. The remaining 14 countries on the council, including rotating members, voted in favour of an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza.
Andebrhan Welde Giorgis, former ambassador of Eritrea to Belgium, France and the UK, tells TRT World that the UNSC is in dire need of reforms to earn legitimacy.
“Reform the use of the veto by the P5 (permanent five) to overcome the prevailing paralysis of the UNSC,” he says, while calling for expanding and rebalancing the UNSC membership to include countries from Africa and South America.
The ‘toothless’ ICJ
The ICJ, the UN’s principal judicial organ, has also drawn widespread criticism for its inability to enforce rulings, particularly in cases involving Israel.
Israel is facing a genocide case at the ICJ for its war on Gaza. In 2024, the court ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal and supported Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
Despite issuing decisions condemning actions by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others, the ICJ lacks the authority to compel compliance, leaving its judgments as little more than moral pronouncements.
“The effectiveness of the ICJ remains fundamentally constrained by its dependence on the consent of states and, more critically, on the political will of the UNSC,” Yetim says.
He says that states like Israel – that are closely allied with veto-wielding powers – operate with a “sense of impunity” that erodes trust in international justice.
To address this, Yetim proposes a bold reform agenda. “I’d advocate for a comprehensive reform agenda aimed at enhancing the ICJ’s autonomy, both financially and institutionally,” he says.
He calls for decoupling the court’s enforcement mechanisms from the UNSC’s political influence and expanding its jurisdictional authority to issue binding judgments without state consent.
Without such changes, the ICJ risks remaining a bystander in the face of grave violations, further undermining the UN’s commitment to human rights and accountability, he says.
IAEA: A bystander in nuclear tensions
Tasked with ensuring global nuclear security, the IAEA has routinely faced accusations of inaction and bias. As Israel and the US targeted Iran over its uranium enrichment, the IAEA appeared sidelined, unable to assert its authority or counter politicised narratives.
Yetim says the UN agency’s “limited enforcement capacity” and a “lack of direct authority over state actors” constitute its core weaknesses. The IAEA’s credibility is further damaged by the perception of selective enforcement, he adds.
“While Iran has been subjected to intense scrutiny and pressure regarding its nuclear programme, other nuclear-armed states outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty – such as Israel – have not been held to the same standard,” he says.
The double standard fuels distrust, particularly among Global South nations, which view the IAEA as a tool of Western geopolitical interests, he says.
Yetim calls for reforms to ensure “impartiality, transparency, and equal treatment of all states under its mandate”. Without such changes, the IAEA risks remaining a passive observer in a world increasingly threatened by nuclear escalation, he adds.
Need for diverse voices at UN
The UN’s failures have amplified the demand for reforms, particularly from rising powers like Türkiye, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Ertem says these nations are not seeking to dismantle the international system but to make it more inclusive.
“Türkiye’s position is not about changing the whole system, refusing the international criteria, norms, values, etc. What Türkiye is demanding today is a better international organisation,” she says.
She calls for expanding the UNSC’s permanent membership to include diverse voices, arguing that the new structure of the UN should be comprehensive and represent different geographies, cultures, and civilisations.
But the path to reform seems fraught with challenges. The veto power of the permanent five remains a barrier. Any attempt to overhaul the UNSC, ICJ, or IAEA requires navigating complex geopolitical rivalries.
Ertem warns that the current system’s “unfairness” fuels global discontent, pointing to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza as a stark example.
“Israel’s unfairness is one of the basic examples, which is once again reminding the international community, especially the people of the Global South, that what we have today is just the pro-Western, Eurocentric, even US-centric world,” she says.
