How irrelevant the UN and the EU have become in front of the great powers. Why they fail to stop the war in the Middle East
The escalation of the conflict in Iran brought back to the fore the fragility of the international system built after the Second World War. While military operations continue, the role of international organizations and multilateral mechanisms seems increasingly diminished, and their ability to manage major crises is seriously challenged.
Recent wars have exposed the vulnerabilities of the EU: PHOTO Shuttertock
“If we take war as an indicator of the viability of the rules-based international order established after World War II, then we might conclude that «PATIENT» has a very weak pulse”, writes Theresa Reinold, Assistant Professor of International Law, EDHEC Business School, in The Conversation.
The war highlighted the limits of the UN collective security system. Although the Security Council has the mandate to protect international peace, it was unable to react quickly after the first attacks on Iran, the author says.
The repeated vetoes of the permanent members prevented the adoption of de-escalation measures, and the conflict took place outside the international legal framework.
It was only on March 11 that the Council adopted a resolution condemning Iran's attacks on the Gulf states, but the document made no reference to the initial strikes by the US and Israel, fueling the perception of a double standard. This selective approach affected the institution's credibility, given that the Council should be the impartial guarantor of the international order.
However, there are mechanisms that could be activated in deadlock situations, such as the “Uniting for Peace” procedure, which allows the General Assembly to intervene when the Council cannot act. So far, however, the member states have not shown the necessary political will to use it.
The European Union, spectator in the most important crisis of the year
In parallel, the conflict highlighted a lack of influence of the European Union in major geopolitical files, according to Theresa Reinold.
Although the EU defines itself as a normative actor and promoter of diplomatic solutions, the war in Iran found the European bloc divided and lacking the ability to act unitedly, the article in The Conversation also shows.
The states of the Union adopted different positions: some supported the actions of the US and Israel, others called for restraint. Internal divergences, combined with Europe's dependence on American security guarantees and the absence of a common defense policy, have significantly reduced the EU's ability to influence the evolution of the conflict.
This passivity contrasts with the important role that Europe has played in the past in the negotiations regarding the Iranian nuclear program, the quoted source added.
The “patient”, weakened but not collapsing
Although the current crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of the international system, specialists emphasize that multilateral institutions are not irreversibly compromised. The UN and the EU still have tools and resources that could allow them to become relevant actors again, provided that the member states show the necessary political will to use them.
In conclusion, the international order based on rules is not “dead“, but it is at a critical moment, and its revitalization depends on the ability of the major actors to cooperate and abandon the unilateral approaches that marked the beginning of the conflict in Iran.
“The patient's pulse is thus weak, but there are effective remedies to strengthen it. Now, we must muster the political will to implement them.” concludes Theresa Reinold's article in The Conversation.
