The United Nations was founded in 1945 after World War 2 with the ambition of maintaining global order, protecting human rights and preventing another global war. It was an attempt to move on from the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations. Whilst the United Nations has done plenty of admirable work in these areas, there is a foundational problem that needs to be addressed: the entire structure of how the General Assembly and Security Council operates.

The severe flaws in the way the United Nations operates means significant inaction on the most urgent issues. This inaction has been at the forefront of recent months after the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy scolded the United Nations Security Council in an address last month, accusing the organisation of allowing Russia to use their veto as a “right to die”. He noted that the United Nations’ inaction “undermines the architecture of global security” and that if the United Nations continued to allow Russia’s behaviour, then “countries will have to rely only on the power of their own arms to ensure their security and not on international law. The United Nations can simply close.”

In Zelenskyy’s scathing address, he accused the United Nations of essentially bowing to Russia as well as other nations who have caused conflicts such as the war in Syria, the Israel-Palestine situation, and conflicts in Somalia and Yemen.

However, this needed to be said. It has been a longstanding criticism of the United Nations that their work in the General Assembly is barely legally binding and any efforts made in the structurally stronger Security Council can be wiped out by an arbitrary veto power.

The atrocities in Ukraine, especially in areas such as Bucha which was decimated by Russian forces, highlight the fact that veto powers are typically held by the most aggressive countries such as China, Russia and the United States. Thus there may be some truth in Zelenskyy’s claim that the veto power is the “right to die” as the most powerful countries can veto decisions on their own wars.

Whilst the veto power was designed to maintain international stability and avoid military use, when countries like Ukraine cannot rely on the Security Council’s assistance and need to take their security into their own hands, what good is the veto power? The five countries with veto power were once the only holders of nuclear weapons and thus a veto power seemed justifiable for reducing the risk of nuclear war, but now other countries also hold nuclear weapons making the tool of veto power undemocratic and outdated.

Ukraine isn’t the only country that has faced inaction from the United Nations in a time of need. Transnistria, a breakaway state officially recognised as part of Moldova, has also had its issues concerning Russia - issues that would drastically affect Ukraine with Russia’s alleged plan of control, cutting Ukraine off any access to the Black Sea. This has many implications but, again, the United Nations lacks action. Subsequent inaction has also occurred in the area of the Gaza strip and many other areas around the world.

Although a large consequence of an organisation in the same league of the United Nations with actual power to act is the abrasion of sovereignty. Sovereignty is integral to member states and their people. At the very least, however, we need to stop pretending that the United Nations is an authoritative source and start realising that it’s time to begin taking serious action. As Zelenskyy noted in his address, reformation needs to happen. I believe the Security Council should be the first thing to change. And if the United Nations cannot reform, Zelenskyy may be right in saying “the next option is to dissolve yourself.”

FEATURED IN: