Q. No. 2: Examine the Concept of National Power and Its Essential Ingredients
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition of National Power
- Theoretical Perspectives on National Power
- Dimensions of National Power
- Essential Ingredients of National Power
- Geography
- Population
- Natural Resources
- Economic Strength
- Military Capability
- Political Stability and Leadership
- Ideology and National Morale
- Diplomacy
- Technological Advancement
- Strategic Culture
- Measurement and Evaluation of National Power
- Examples of National Power in Practice
- Challenges in Asserting National Power in the Contemporary Era
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
National power is the central concept in international relations and political science, determining the ability of a state to influence others and achieve its goals in the global arena. It is a multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing military, economic, political, and cultural capabilities.
“Power is the currency of international politics.” — Hans J. Morgenthau
2. Definition of National Power
National power refers to the totality of a nation’s capacity to influence other countries’ behavior in line with its national interest. It is the aggregate of the resources and capabilities a state possesses to assert influence and ensure survival.
Morgenthau defined it as:
“National power is a combination of a nation’s capabilities to control the actions of others in the international system.”
3. Theoretical Perspectives on National Power
Theory | Perspective on Power |
Realism | Power is the central goal; military and economic power are most crucial. |
Liberalism | Soft power, international institutions, and cooperation are equally important. |
Constructivism | Power is shaped by ideas, identity, and discourse. |
4. Dimensions of National Power
- Hard Power: Military and economic coercion.
- Soft Power: Cultural influence, diplomacy, values (Joseph Nye).
- Smart Power: A blend of hard and soft power tailored to context.
5. Essential Ingredients of National Power
a. Geography
- Geographical size, location, and terrain determine strategic advantage.
- Example: Russia’s vast landmass provides defense depth; Pakistan’s location gives geo-strategic leverage.
b. Population
- Size, skills, literacy, and health affect national productivity and defense potential.
- g., China and India leverage large populations for economic and military mobilization.
c. Natural Resources
- Access to oil, gas, minerals, water, and fertile land enhances self-reliance and export capacity.
- Example: Middle East countries’ power projection due to oil reserves.
d. Economic Strength
- GDP size, industrial output, trade balance, and infrastructure define power sustainability.
- Example: The USA’s global influence is reinforced by its $25+ trillion economy.
e. Military Capability
- Quality and quantity of armed forces, nuclear capability, technological advancement.
- Example: North Korea’s global influence disproportionate to size due to nuclear arms.
f. Political Stability and Leadership
- Effective governance and visionary leadership unify national efforts.
- Example: Germany’s post-WWII recovery under Adenauer.
g. Ideology and National Morale
- A unifying national ideology increases internal cohesion and international legitimacy.
- g., Soviet Union’s global reach during the Cold War was partly ideological.
h. Diplomacy
- Effective diplomacy secures alliances and manages conflicts.
- Example: China’s Belt and Road Initiative enhances its influence via diplomacy and investment.
i. Technological Advancement
- Innovation in AI, cyber, space, and military tech enhances national competitiveness.
- Example: US dominance in tech through Silicon Valley giants.
j. Strategic Culture
- Long-standing traditions, doctrines, and attitudes toward war and peace.
- Example: Israel’s proactive defense doctrine based on past existential threats.
6. Measurement and Evaluation of National Power
Several models and indices have been proposed:
- CINC Index (Composite Index of National Capability): Military, population, and industrial data.
- GNP + Military Model: Combines economic size and defense spending.
- Soft Power Index: Developed by Portland and USC, includes culture, governance, and diplomacy.
7. Examples of National Power in Practice
Country | Display of Power |
USA | Economic, military, technological supremacy; global alliances. |
China | Economic rise, military modernization, global influence through BRI. |
Russia | Geopolitical influence via energy exports and military interventions. |
Pakistan | Strategic location, nuclear power, active diplomacy in Islamic world. |
8. Challenges in Asserting National Power Today
- Globalization has diluted absolute sovereignty.
- Non-state actors (e.g., ISIS) challenge state-centric power.
- Climate change, pandemics, and cyber threats redefine power.
- Multilateral constraints via institutions like the UN limit unilateral power use.
9. Conclusion
National power is not a static possession but a dynamic capacity that evolves with internal development and global shifts. A successful nation must adapt its power elements — both hard and soft — to achieve strategic autonomy and global relevance.
“Power is not brute force and money; power is in your spirit. Power is in your soul. It is in your intellect.” — Morgan Freeman
Q. No. 3: Point out the Main Goals of Foreign Policy of States and Determine the Factors Which Influence Its Making and Implementation
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition of Foreign Policy
- Main Goals/Objectives of Foreign Policy
- Determinants of Foreign Policy Making and Implementation
- Internal Determinants
- External Determinants
- Case Studies: Foreign Policy Goals in Practice
- Challenges in Foreign Policy Formulation
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
Foreign policy is a key instrument through which states pursue their national interests in the international system. It reflects a country’s strategic intent, guiding its interactions with other states, international organizations, and non-state actors.
“Foreign policy is the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment.” – George Modelski
2. Definition of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is defined as:
“A set of principles, decisions, and strategies adopted by a state to safeguard its national interests and interact with the international community.”
It encompasses diplomatic, economic, military, and cultural instruments.
3. Main Goals of Foreign Policy
The primary goals include:
a. National Security
- Protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty is the foremost priority.
- Example: Pakistan’s alignment with China to counter regional threats.
b. Economic Prosperity
- Enhancing trade, securing investments, and ensuring access to resources.
- Example: Gulf states diversifying economies via foreign partnerships (Vision 2030).
c. Preservation of National Ideology
- Promoting values and cultural identity abroad.
- Example: Iran’s foreign policy based on Islamic revolution export.
d. Strengthening International Standing
- Gaining influence in global institutions like the UN, IMF, and WTO.
- Example: India’s pursuit of permanent UNSC membership.
e. Promotion of Peace and Stability
- Participating in conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and regional integration.
- Example: Norway’s role in mediating global peace accords.
f. Strategic Alliances
- Forming military, economic, or political partnerships.
- Example: NATO for collective defense and deterrence.
g. Protection of Citizens Abroad
- Safeguarding rights of expatriates and diaspora communities.
- Example: Philippines’ strong foreign labor policy protections.
4. Determinants of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is shaped by a combination of internal and external factors.
A. Internal Determinants
Factor | Description | Example |
Geography | Strategic location, borders, and natural terrain | Pakistan’s proximity to India, Afghanistan |
Political System & Leadership | Nature of governance influences priorities | US foreign policy changes from Trump to Biden |
Economic Resources | Availability of tradeable goods, industrial capacity | China’s export-led diplomacy |
Military Capability | Determines assertiveness or pacifism in global affairs | Russia’s Ukraine invasion |
Public Opinion & Media | Democratic states consider electoral pressure | UK’s Brexit foreign policy |
National Ideology | Shapes global identity and alliances | Zionism in Israeli foreign policy |
Historical Experiences | Colonialism, past wars influence approach | Germany’s pacifist diplomacy post-WWII |
B. External Determinants
Factor | Description | Example |
International System | Unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity | Cold War vs. Post-9/11 policies |
Global Economy | Trade blocs, inflation, supply chains | Oil embargoes shaping OPEC policies |
Alliances & Rivalries | Regional blocs, defense pacts | QUAD, SCO, BRICS |
Technological Change | Cybersecurity, AI, surveillance affect strategies | U.S.-China tech war |
Global Crises | Pandemics, climate change, migration | EU refugee policy, COVID diplomacy |
5. Case Studies: Foreign Policy Goals in Practice
Country | Key Goals and Determinants |
USA | Global dominance, democracy promotion, counterterrorism; driven by economy, military, elections |
China | Economic expansion, regional hegemony; driven by BRI, Communist Party ideology |
Pakistan | Strategic stability, Kashmir stance, economic survival; driven by India factor, IMF, and CPEC |
Russia | Sphere of influence in Eastern Europe; driven by military and historical pride |
6. Challenges in Foreign Policy Formulation
- Global Uncertainty: Multipolarity and rise of non-state actors.
- Domestic Instability: Political transitions and weak institutions.
- Moral Dilemmas: Human rights vs. strategic interests.
- Technology and Cyber Threats: Surveillance and disinformation warfare.
7. Conclusion
Foreign policy is not merely an abstract vision but a concrete expression of national interest in a dynamic global arena. The goals of foreign policy vary from national security to economic development, and its formulation is a complex interplay of internal capacities and external constraints. A successful foreign policy ensures a nation’s dignity, prosperity, and relevance in global affairs.
Q. No. 4: What is the Significance of Security to States? How Far Do You Agree That International Security Has Given Way to Global Security in Face of New Challenges of Terrorism and Human Security?
Outline:
- Introduction
- Concept of Security in International Relations
- Significance of Security to States
- Traditional Notion of International Security
- Transition to Global Security
- New Security Challenges
- Terrorism
- Human Security
- Climate Change
- Cyber Threats
- Pandemics
- Comparison: International vs. Global Security
- Case Studies Illustrating the Shift
- Critique and Counterarguments
- Conclusion
- Introduction
Security is the cornerstone of state survival and global stability. Historically rooted in military defense and state sovereignty, the notion of security has expanded in the 21st century to include global, human, and transnational dimensions.
“Security is the absence of threats to acquired values.” – Arnold Wolfers
- Concept of Security in International Relations
Security in IR traditionally meant protection of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national interest. However, post-Cold War paradigms and globalized threats have led to the evolution of a broader concept: global security, encompassing both state and non-state concerns.
- Significance of Security to States
- Survival of State
- Ensures existence in an anarchic international system.
- Deterrence through defense capabilities.
- Economic Development
- Stability attracts investment, trade, and growth.
- National Unity
- Internal peace consolidates nation-building.
- Diplomatic Leverage
- A secure state is a credible actor on global platforms.
- Protection of Sovereignty
- Maintains control over internal and external affairs.
- Traditional Notion of International Security
Feature | Description |
State-centric | Focused on territorial integrity, sovereignty |
Military-based | Dependent on deterrence, arms, and alliances |
Zero-sum logic | One state’s gain is another’s loss |
Key Institutions | UN Security Council, NATO, alliances |
- Transition to Global Security
Global security is a holistic and cooperative approach that extends beyond state borders, addressing threats that are non-military, transnational, and people-centered.
“The security of people must be considered as vital as the security of states.” – UNDP (1994)
- New Security Challenges
- Terrorism
- Non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, ISIS redefine threat sources.
- Attacks are transnational, unpredictable, and ideologically driven.
- Human Security
- Defined by UNDP as “freedom from want and fear.”
- Includes health, education, food, environment, and dignity.
- Climate Change
- Rising sea levels, natural disasters threaten millions globally.
- Security risks include forced migration, resource wars.
- Cyber Threats
- Hacking, misinformation, and digital surveillance affect state function.
- Cybersecurity is now integral to national defense.
- Pandemics
- COVID-19 highlighted fragility of borders and healthcare.
- Global cooperation essential to public health and economic security.
- Comparison: International vs. Global Security
Feature | International Security | Global Security |
Focus | Sovereign states | Humanity and planet |
Actors | Nation-states | States, NGOs, IOs, corporations |
Threats | Military aggression | Terrorism, climate, disease, poverty |
Response Mechanism | Alliances, military buildup | Multilateralism, SDGs, cooperation |
Key Institutions | NATO, UN Security Council | UNGA, WHO, UNEP, G7/G20 |
- Case Studies Illustrating the Shift
- 9/11 Attacks
- Redefined security priorities globally.
- Led to global war on terror, intelligence cooperation.
- COVID-19 Pandemic
- National defense mechanisms failed.
- Vaccination, research, and containment required global efforts.
- Climate Security (Paris Agreement)
- Threats from climate-induced migration and disasters require joint frameworks.
- Ukraine War & Food Security
- A regional war disrupting global wheat, gas, and fertilizer supply—global ripple effect.
- Critique and Counterarguments
- State-centric threats remain: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminds us of conventional threats.
- Unequal global governance: Poor countries often sidelined in global agenda-setting.
- Resource Constraints: Not all countries can implement global security priorities due to lack of means.
- Security Dilemma persists: Arms race, nuclear buildup continue despite global cooperation ideals.
- Conclusion
Security remains a core function of the state, but its definition has undeniably evolved in the face of complex global threats. While international security structures are still in place, global security frameworks are increasingly becoming necessary for collective survival. Terrorism, human insecurity, and transnational crises have made cooperation, multilateralism, and people-centered policies indispensable for real and lasting peace.
Q. No. 5: Define International Law and Explain Its Nature. Is It of Significance to the Development of Laws of War and Their Application?
Outline:
- Introduction
- Definition of International Law
- Nature of International Law
- Legal Status Debate
- Binding Force
- Sources of International Law
- Importance of International Law in the Development of Laws of War
- Application of Laws of War in Modern Conflicts
- Case Studies
- Criticisms and Limitations
- Conclusion
- Introduction
International law governs the conduct of states and other international actors in their interactions. Among its vital branches, the laws of war, also known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL), play a crucial role in limiting the barbarity of armed conflict. In a world increasingly plagued by both state and non-state violence, understanding the role and nature of international law is essential for preserving humanity.
- Definition of International Law
“International law is a body of rules which binds states and other international actors in their relations with one another.”
— Oppenheim
It regulates:
- Diplomatic relations
- Territorial sovereignty
- War and peace
- Human rights
- Environmental concerns
- Trade and navigation
- Nature of International Law
The nature of international law is debated among legal scholars and political theorists.
- Legal Status Debate
- Austinian View (John Austin): International law is not true law, as it lacks a sovereign authority to enforce it.
- Modern View: It is a horizontal legal system based on consent, custom, and reciprocity rather than centralized coercion.
- Binding Force
- Derived from state consent through treaties and customs.
- Enforced by mutual interests, reputation, and institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
- Sources of International Law (Article 38 of ICJ Statute):
- International Treaties/Conventions
- Customary International Law
- General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations
- Judicial Decisions and Teachings of Scholars
- Importance of International Law in the Development of Laws of War
International Law has immensely contributed to the codification and evolution of the Laws of War, primarily under the umbrella of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
- Origins and Development
- Hague Conventions (1899 & 1907): Set rules on the conduct of warfare.
- Geneva Conventions (1949): Codified protections for civilians, prisoners of war, and the wounded.
- Additional Protocols (1977): Expanded protections in civil wars and guerrilla conflicts.
- Key Principles of Laws of War
- Distinction: Between combatants and civilians.
- Proportionality: Attacks must not cause excessive civilian damage.
- Military Necessity: Force must be limited to what is necessary for achieving military objectives.
- Humanity: Prohibits unnecessary suffering and inhumane treatment.
- Application of Laws of War in Modern Conflicts
- War Between States
- Example: Russia–Ukraine War (2022–): Geneva Conventions invoked for POW treatment and civilian protection.
- Internal Armed Conflicts
- Syria, Yemen, Sudan: Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and Protocol II apply.
- War Against Terrorism
- Post-9/11 U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay raised debates on unlawful combatants and legal vacuum zones.
- Use of Modern Technology
- Drones, cyber warfare, and AI weaponry challenge traditional norms, pushing the boundaries of existing legal frameworks.
- Case Studies
Case | Application of International Law |
Nuremberg Trials (1945-46) | Established accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity. |
ICJ Ruling on Nicaragua (1986) | Upheld the principle of non-intervention and use of force. |
ICTY & ICTR | Prosecution of war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. |
Ukraine v. Russia (2022) | Alleged genocide and violation of UN Charter; case at ICJ. |
- Criticisms and Limitations
- Enforcement Gap: No global police force; reliant on state cooperation.
- Power Politics: Veto powers in the UN Security Council often paralyze legal action.
- Non-State Actors: Terrorist groups and militias often ignore legal norms.
- Selective Application: Accusations of Western bias and double standards (e.g., US actions in Iraq vs. Russian actions in Ukraine).
- Conclusion
International law, despite its limitations, plays a crucial role in shaping the modern conduct of warfare, ensuring accountability, and reducing human suffering. The laws of war owe their existence and continued evolution to the legal framework provided by international law. In an interconnected and conflict-prone world, upholding these laws is essential not only for justice but for the preservation of humanity itself.
Q. No. 6: Is War a Rational Act of State Policy? Explain in View of the Wars Fought in the 20th Century
Outline:
- Introduction
- Concept of War in International Relations
- The Rationalist Perspective: War as Policy by Other Means
- Counterview: War as Irrational or Emotionally Driven
- Major Wars of the 20th Century and Rationality Debate
- World War I (1914–1918)
- World War II (1939–1945)
- Cold War Conflicts
- Proxy Wars: Vietnam, Afghanistan
- Gulf War (1991)
- Theoretical Perspectives on War’s Rationality
- Realism
- Liberalism
- Constructivism
- Modern Lessons on War’s Rationality
- Conclusion
- Introduction
War has been a recurring phenomenon throughout human history. In international relations, an ongoing debate centers around whether war is a rational extension of politics or an irrational outburst of emotion and miscalculation. The 20th century—marked by two World Wars, the Cold War, and numerous regional conflicts—provides ample evidence to evaluate this question critically.
“War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.” – Carl von Clausewitz
- Concept of War in International Relations
War is a state of organized armed conflict between political entities, often to pursue national interests like security, territory, ideology, or prestige. It can be classified into:
- Total vs. limited wars
- Conventional vs. unconventional wars
- Interstate vs. intrastate wars
- The Rationalist Perspective: War as Policy Tool
Under this lens, war is:
- A deliberate state action to achieve political, territorial, or strategic goals.
- Weighed through cost-benefit calculations, often initiated when diplomacy fails.
- An extension of rational choice theory in political science.
- Counterview: War as Irrational or Emotional
Critics argue:
- Wars are often driven by nationalism, revenge, ideology, or misperception.
- They lead to unintended consequences, showing a lack of rational foresight.
- Human error, egoistic leaders, and military-industrial complexes fuel irrational escalations.
- 20th Century Wars: Case-Based Evaluation of Rationality
- World War I (1914–1918) – Largely Irrational
- Triggered by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but escalated due to miscalculations, rigid alliances, and militarism.
- Cost 20 million lives and led to destruction disproportionate to initial aims.
- Historians like Barbara Tuchman describe it as “The March of Folly.”
- World War II (1939–1945) – Partly Rational
- Nazi Germany’s aggression (Poland, USSR) based on expansionist ideology (Lebensraum).
- Allied powers eventually waged war as a rational necessity to contain fascism.
- Use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki is controversial but considered strategic by US leaders.
- The Cold War – Deterrence as Rational Policy
- US and USSR engaged in strategic balancing rather than direct war.
- The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented irrational escalation.
- The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) showed rational crisis management under pressure.
- Vietnam War (1955–1975) – Irrational Outcomes
- US intervention to contain communism led to 58,000 American deaths, political division, and eventual failure.
- Questioned for lack of cultural understanding, misjudged resistance, and flawed strategy.
- Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) – Misguided Rationality
- USSR aimed for geopolitical control but suffered huge costs, eventually contributing to its collapse.
- Mujahedeen resistance and US support prolonged the conflict irrationally.
- Gulf War (1991) – Highly Rationalized
- Coalition forces launched Operation Desert Storm to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
- Quick, decisive, and UN-sanctioned military action.
- Achieved clear objectives with limited casualties.
- Theoretical Perspectives on War’s Rationality
Theory | Perspective on War |
Realism | War is a rational means to ensure survival and balance power. |
Liberalism | War can be prevented through institutions, norms, and democracy. |
Constructivism | War is socially constructed, shaped by ideas and identities, not always rational. |
- Modern Lessons on War’s Rationality
- Technological and Nuclear Deterrence: Rational strategies like Mutual Deterrence prevent war.
- Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare: Non-state actors challenge the state’s rational control of war.
- Media and Public Opinion: Influence decision-making, sometimes pushing for irrational engagement.
- Hybrid Warfare & AI: Require updated understanding of rational war planning.
- Conclusion
While some 20th-century wars reflect rational calculation—such as the Gulf War or Cold War deterrence—others like World War I and Vietnam expose irrational, emotional, or ideologically driven decisions. Thus, war can be both a rational instrument of policy and a manifestation of irrational impulses. It ultimately depends on leadership, context, and the accuracy of strategic perception.
Q. No. 7: Keeping in View the Charter, Assess the Working of the United Nations in the New Millennium
Outline:
- Introduction
- Objectives of the UN Charter (1945)
- Overview of UN Structure Relevant to Global Governance
- Achievements of the UN in the New Millennium
- Limitations and Criticisms of UN Functioning
- Contemporary Global Challenges and the UN’s Role
- Proposals for Reform
- Conclusion
- Introduction
The United Nations (UN), established in 1945 after the devastations of World War II, was envisioned as a platform for global peace, cooperation, and collective security. Entering the 21st century—or the “new millennium”—the UN has faced unprecedented global challenges ranging from terrorism to climate change and humanitarian crises. This answer evaluates the UN’s working in light of its Charter objectives and its effectiveness in a changing geopolitical landscape.
“To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” — Preamble to the UN Charter
- Objectives of the UN Charter (1945)
According to Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, the core purposes include:
- Maintaining international peace and security
- Promoting friendly relations among nations
- Achieving international cooperation in solving problems of economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature
- Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
- Upholding sovereignty and non-intervention
- Overview of UN Structure Relevant to Global Governance
UN Organ | Functionality |
UN Security Council (UNSC) | Maintains peace and security; power vested in five permanent members (P5) |
UN General Assembly (UNGA) | Forum for all member states to deliberate on global issues |
International Court of Justice (ICJ) | Legal arm for peaceful dispute resolution |
UN Secretariat | Administrative and executive organ headed by the Secretary-General |
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) | Oversees development, sustainability, and humanitarian aid |
- Achievements of the UN in the New Millennium
- Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution
- UN peacekeepers deployed in Mali, South Sudan, Lebanon, and Congo
- Supported post-conflict rebuilding in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and East Timor
- Promotion of Human Rights
- Creation of the UN Human Rights Council (2006)
- International tribunals: ICTY, ICTR, and ICC support justice for war crimes and genocide
- Sustainable Development
- Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2000–2015: Significant reductions in poverty, child mortality
- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2015–2030: Framework for tackling inequality, climate change, and sustainability
- Climate Action
- UNFCCC and Paris Agreement (2015) facilitate global climate diplomacy
- UN climate conferences (COP summits) as global negotiation platforms
- Global Health
- WHO‘s central role in handling pandemics: SARS, Ebola, and COVID-19
- COVAX facility: equitable vaccine distribution initiative
- Women and Youth Empowerment
- UN Women, UNICEF, and campaigns like HeForShe promote gender equality and children’s rights
- Limitations and Criticisms of UN Functioning
- Security Council Veto Power
- P5 nations (USA, UK, Russia, China, France) frequently block resolutions, paralyzing action
- Example: Russia’s veto in Ukraine conflict; US veto on Israel-Palestine issues
- Inequality Among Member States
- Disproportionate influence of powerful states
- Lack of representation for Africa, Latin America, Muslim world in UNSC
- Bureaucracy and Inefficiency
- Slow decision-making
- Overlapping mandates between agencies
- Failure in Preventing Conflicts
- Inaction in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Rohingya genocide, and Ukraine War
- Weak Enforcement
- ICJ and Human Rights Council lack binding enforcement power
- Contemporary Global Challenges and the UN’s Role
Challenge | UN Response |
Terrorism | UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2006) but limited coordination |
Pandemics (COVID-19) | WHO’s leadership praised but criticized for delay and Chinese influence |
Climate Crisis | Paris Agreement (2015), IPCC reports, COP summits |
Nuclear Threats | IAEA monitors; but North Korea and Iran crises remain unresolved |
Refugees and Migration | UNHCR actively supports displaced populations (Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine) |
AI and Cybersecurity | Still under-addressed in global governance frameworks |
- Proposals for Reform
- Expand UNSC: Add permanent members from Africa, Asia, and Latin America
- Limit Veto Power in humanitarian crises
- Improve coordination between agencies to eliminate redundancy
- Enhance funding transparency and accountability mechanisms
- Empower civil society and youth voices in global governance
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, proposed:
“Reform must not be cosmetic, but transformative.”
- Conclusion
While the UN has remained indispensable in maintaining diplomatic dialogue, promoting development, and providing humanitarian relief, its relevance is often questioned due to structural flaws and geopolitical constraints. Nonetheless, in a world marred by war, inequality, and global crises, no alternative institution offers the same universal legitimacy. Thus, strengthening and reforming the UN in light of its Charter remains the only viable path forward for sustainable global governance.