How effective is the United Nations in promoting and maintaining world order? HSC Legal Studies – Task 4 The United Nations has been only partially effective in promoting and maintaining world order. Throughout its 73-year history, the UN has shown that while it can achieve some success in global order, it also suffers from the arthritis of bureaucracy, as well as the differing standards of different nations. when it comes to solving problems of the world order. Despite limited effectiveness in achieving the world order, the United Nations promotes effectively by setting an international benchmark for the standards of the world order through its legislative and judicial bodies. This is highly desirable compared to the alternative of nothing. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The United Nations has created and maintained various judicial bodies to maintain world order, which have had mixed results. The United Nations is responsible for the ICC (International Criminal Court), the Permanent Court of Arbitration, numerous ad hoc tribunals (i.e. the ICTY), as well as other minor tribunals. The ICC is highly problematic due to its creation under the Rome Statute (1998), as well as its practical implementation. The nature of legislation and state sovereignty means that nations can opt in or out, creating a patchwork of responsibilities among nations. Additionally, he has secured three convictions since 2002 at a cost of $1 billion, making him very resource efficient. However, in all other published indictments, the ICC has a history of botched investigations, which limits its practical effectiveness. Ugandan human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo said that "the ICC made mistakes in the [Lord's Resistance Army] case from the start", in response to allegations that the CPI allegedly mishandled the matter. However, ad hoc UN tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR have proven to be an effective means of achieving justice. Since the 1990s, there have been 95 indictees for the ICTR and 161 for the ICTY, many of whom have exercised great influence. The Guardian said in 2017 that the ICTY had “bought justice, even perfect closure, where chaos and murder once reigned”. This is particularly poignant given that the masterminds of violations of the world order have been held accountable, as shown in the cases The Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić (IT-09-92) and The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić who held responsible senior Serbian leaders. However, it has also been criticized as a "winner writes the history books" perspective on global issues. Hoare, himself an Anglo-Bosnian, writes that 68% of the ICTY defendants were Serbs and that this was a “failure of international justice for all parties”. However, to maintain world order, it must be recognized that international courts provide a benchmark for global standards and therefore have a certain effectiveness in promoting world order. United Nations peacekeeping forces around the world are infamous for mismanagement and are plagued by bureaucracy, but they have managed to achieve some effectiveness in maintaining global order. The Srebreniča massacre has been described as a failure on the part of the UN, due to its failure to allow Dutch forces to operate against theSerbs. The Independent wrote in 2015 that “survivors still blame Dutch troops for not doing enough.” In this case, the UN consistently denied DUTCHBAT's crucial airstrikes to protect civilians, for fear of reprisals against other UN troops. Additionally, split-second decisions had to be authorized by New York bureaucrats. This also happened in Rwanda, where the Guardian writes that there is an audio recording of Belgian peacekeepers saying: "There are killings, and New York doesn't give a damn." "Furthermore, command systems were unnecessarily bureaucratic and command priorities were mixed, leading to loss of civilian lives. On the other hand, the UN had some successes in East Timor, but one wonders even if this was exclusively the work of the UN Following a crisis that developed in 1999, resolution 1264 (1999) was adopted, creating INTERFET to restore peace and protect the East Timorese. The UN learned a lesson from the horrors of the 1990s and allowed countries with greater interests to have a greater command presence and stopped putting all decisions beyond New York. (retired) of the Australian Army wrote that "the reconstruction was exemplary", but that "these conditions for success were rare". The BBC also wrote in 2012 that the UN response had been positive, but "still had its characteristic flaws". Thus, the UN's success in promoting and maintaining global order was partly due to improvements learned in the 1990s. Therefore, the UN recognizes that unnecessary bureaucracy and serious errors have hampered the promotion and maintenance of world order through its peacekeeping missions. In recent years, the UN has failed to clearly respond to threats to the global order posed by actors eager to change the status quo. Due to impasse in the Security Council since Russia's invasion of Crimea, the UN has done little to restore world order in the region. Russia's illegal annexation aims to challenge American hegemony that the United States has enjoyed since 1992. The United Nations Charter (1945), under Article 2(4), allowed Ukraine to defend yourself by force. However, it could be argued that the UN should have the right to intervene now. under Article 2(7), which is not the case due to Russia's veto power in the Security Council. Instead, Ukraine has tried to protect its own citizens in the meantime by force and also by Law No. 1207-VII (Ukraine) which protects the rights of residents of the occupied territories. Furthermore, China has begun to create a new Sinocentric sphere of influence through an expansionist policy in the South China Sea. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Despite the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a UN body, ruling against China's expansion in Philippines v. China (No. 2013-19) and China's own legislation At the UN, particularly Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in agreement with the Philippines, little more concrete has been done to challenge China. Their Foreign Ministry openly declared that its illegal actions were “entirely appropriate and legal”. The UN neither maintained nor promoted the world order in this case because it failed to hold China accountable for its actions and did nothing to prevent it from withdrawing from its international obligations when she wanted to. The same thing can be said of).). 22/25