“What takes place in the Security Council more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving.”

–Jeane Kirkpatrick

World War II meant that the League of Nations had failed in its mission to prevent global conflict. Soon after the end of the war, another global institution was established; the United Nations. Overtime, its objectives have come to include the maintenance of international peace and security, social and economic development, humanitarian assignments, etc.

Despite taking on such crucial responsibilities and maintaining an administrative range that engulfs the entire globe, the UN has often been criticised for its inefficiencies and inactions; as in the cases of Somalia, Bosnia and Kashmir, among others.

A large amount of criticism roots out from the organisation’s terribly undemocratic structure. The United Nations Security Council, a powerful organ of the UN concerned with maintaining global peace and security, is made up of 15 member-states out of which 5 are permanent and 10 are non-permanent. The 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) hold the right to veto any movement initiated in the council. The exercise of veto, or the threat of veto, has more than often resulted in a deadlock between the member-states, which results in inaction.

As less powerful nations align themselves with greater powers (permanent members), decision-making within the UNSC becomes highly political and biased. Unfortunately, such global institutions also escape checks and balances, and are allowed to function in their own damaged way.