The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect

by Ramesh Chandra Thakur

Preventing humanitarian atrocities is becoming as important for the United Nations as dealing with inter-state war. In this book, Ramesh Thakur examines the transformation in UN operations, analysing its changing role and structure. He asks why, when and how force may be used and argues that the growing gulf between legality and legitimacy is evidence of an eroded sense of international community. He considers the tension between the US, with its capacity to use force and project power, and the UN, as the centre of the international law enforcement system. He asserts the central importance of the rule of law and of a rules-based order focused on the UN as the foundation of a civilised system of international relations. This book will be of interest to students of the UN and international organisations in politics, law and international relations departments, as well as policymakers in the UN and other NGOs.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law

406 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Alec · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book analyzing the UN and its role in current world society. Thakur takes a journey through the (recent) history of the UN, mostly with regards to Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq and the turn of the millennium. He is an institutional UN-er and puts much faith into the institution, its leaders and its possibilities giving the book an overall positive outlook on the UN as a whole. It's too simple to point fingers at the recent failures and attribute that to the weakness of the UN; Thakur makes clear that the institution is only as strong or as weak as its member states decry it to be, a lesson known to all who can read the UN Charter.

Written in 2005, this is a bit dated for 2024. However, in defense, it holds up remarkably well and twenty years of time passed doesn't dilute the messages Thakur has for his readers. Mainly he argues for the use of enhanced peacekeeping, institutional reforms, a strong and personable Secretary General, sovereignty and new challenges to it, an expanded Security Council, responsibilities of both Northern and Southern member states, and, most importantly, a relationship of accountability between the UN and its most powerful member, the USA.

Funny, it almost always seems to come back to the USA. Thakur appears to gravitate towards the UN's view of the 'world's superpower' throughout his writing. He meanders back and forth towards the edge of hard criticism, but won't take the plunge as someone like Chomsky would to put in plain writing: the USA picks and chooses which laws it will pay lip-service to, and which it will blindly ignore in pursuit of interests. Now, as a man of the UN, Thakur also knows that without the USA, the UN loses backing, power, funding and, in the eyes of some (not sure how many nowadays) legitimacy. This UN-US axis is extremely tricky and I don't claim to know better than Thakur, but he highlights many egregious examples of violations of international law, but overall feels a bit 'Stockholmed' to the idea that the USA is actually a beneficial actor in the world community.

Thakur's book was written in 2005, and since then we've seen Bush's 2nd term, Obama, Trump, Biden and now back to Trump. Can we really look at those leaders with a straight face and say that the UN was their priority, or even an afterthought? Unauthorized drone strikes, unimpeded support of Israel, troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War, Russia's invasion of Ukraine - can the USA look in the mirror and say, we're the 'good guys'?

Consider the following words, from Obama on NATO intervention in Libya, 2011:
"That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action."

Now, one might claim that the situation is different - actors, states, crimes, etc - but doesn't this sound, I don't know, kind of similar to Gaza today? One wonderful section in Thakur's book deals with the creation (and refusal to join by the US) of the ICC at the end of the millennium. I'd love to hear his view on the current iteration of the ICC and how they are actively attempting to enforce International Law . It's clear that the US has no enthusiasm for joining the ICC and accepting accountability for its actions, but what about 'lesser powers'? What example does it set to the international community when US Senators are threatening to sanction the ICC because of its pursuit of justice with regards to crimes against humanity of Israeli leadership? Let's not speak about the rehabilitation of war criminal and breaker of international law, George W. Bush. Having a Trump presidency doesn't mean that Bush was any better for upholding some semblance of sanity, law and justice in the world. So, if the US actively flaunts international law, thumbing its nose at the UN, ICC, ICJ and other international organizations, as the strongest power in the world, why should anyone else follow the rules? Thakur's book doesn't answer this question either, so if that's an answer you're looking for, we'll have to look somewhere else.

[Milly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was assigned this book for class, and was half-expecting it to be filled with terms and concepts for a basic understanding. But instead, it proposed a lot of different arguments that were actually quite interesting.