International Organisations

Written and reviewed by Subhra Gupta, Humanities faculty at UniDrill (M.A. Sociology, University of Delhi · 7 years teaching Humanities). Based on NCERT Political Science Class XII (Contemporary World Politics), Chapter 4.

Is the UN just a "talking shop"?

In 2006, during a crisis between Israel and Lebanon, cartoonists showed the UN as a body that talks while others fight. The question behind those cartoons is fair: do we really need organisations that mostly hold meetings? Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General, gave the classic answer: the UN was built not to lead humanity to heaven but to save it from hell. Shashi Tharoor puts the same idea differently: talking, even endless talking, is better than fighting. This chapter explains what the UN and its sister bodies can and cannot do.

Why do states create international organisations?

An international organisation is not a super-state. It has no authority over its members beyond what they give it. It is created by states, it responds to states, and it comes into being only when states agree to build it.

States build such bodies to solve cooperation problems. Disease and global warming do not stop at borders, so countries need a place where they can agree on how to share the costs of tackling them, how to divide the benefits fairly, and how to stop a member from cheating on the deal. An organisation gives them rules, a bureaucracy and a regular meeting place. It also helps countries settle disputes peacefully before they turn into wars.

From the League of Nations to the UN

The League of Nations was set up after World War I, but it could not prevent World War II (1939 to 1945). The UN was founded as its successor. The founding was a slow process, and CUET likes the dates.

The UN's objective is to prevent international conflict, to encourage cooperation, to stop conflicts from growing into war, to limit fighting when it breaks out, and to improve social and economic development. By 2011 it had 193 member states.

How the UN is organised

The UN has separate bodies for separate jobs. The General Assembly and Security Council deal with war and peace, while a family of agencies handles social and economic issues.

The five permanent members are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. They were chosen because they were the most powerful nations and the victors of World War II. Russia now holds the seat that the Soviet Union held.

António Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal (1995 to 2002) and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2005 to 2015), is the ninth Secretary-General and took over on 1 January 2017. Money matters too: in 2019 the biggest contributors to the UN regular budget were the USA (22.0 per cent), China (12.0), Japan (8.5), Germany (6.0), the UK (4.5) and France (4.4), while India contributed 0.8 per cent.

Why did the UN need reform after the Cold War?

The UN was designed in 1945, but the world it now serves looks very different. The chain of change explains why reform became a demand.

Cause to effect. The Soviet Union collapsed and the US became the strongest power, while Russia and the US began to cooperate. China and India grew in importance and Asian economies surged. Many new countries joined the UN. New problems appeared as well: genocide, civil war, ethnic conflict, terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change, environmental damage and epidemics. An organisation shaped by 1945 realities was now expected to handle all of them.

In 1992 the General Assembly adopted a resolution listing three complaints about the Security Council: it no longer reflects contemporary political realities, its decisions reflect only Western values and interests, and it lacks equitable representation. On 1 January 1997, Secretary-General Kofi Annan started an inquiry into UN reform.

Two kinds of reform are discussed. One is reform of structures and processes, mainly the Security Council. The other is reform of jurisdiction, meaning what issues the UN should handle.

The Security Council and the veto

The Council's membership was expanded from 11 to 15 in 1965, but only in non-permanent seats. The number of permanent members did not change.

The veto is the negative vote of a permanent member. Even if every other member votes for a decision, one permanent member's negative vote can stall it.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: a permanent member's negative vote stalls a Council decision. In reality: only a negative vote works as a veto. A permanent member that abstains does not block a resolution, so a resolution can pass even when one permanent member abstains.

Two views. For the exam: many states argue that the veto is undemocratic and should be abolished or modified, since it gives five countries the power to stop what the rest want. Another reading: the permanent members are unlikely to agree to give up the veto, and without it the great powers might lose interest in the UN, which would leave the organisation weaker. Both arguments are part of the textbook's account.

Pause and predict: A Security Council resolution gets 14 votes in favour and a negative vote from one permanent member. Does it pass?

Check your answer: No. The negative vote of a single permanent member stalls the decision, however many members support it.

Who should be a new member?

Reform proposals suggest that new permanent and non-permanent members should satisfy criteria such as these.

What decisions did the 2005 summit take?

At the UN's 60th anniversary in 2005, world leaders agreed on steps to make the organisation more relevant. The table shows what was decided and what was not.

Note what is missing: no agreement to abolish the veto.

Pause and predict: Was the Trusteeship Council restored or wound up in 2005?

Check your answer: Wound up. The 2005 summit agreed to end the Trusteeship Council.

India and the UN: the case for a permanent seat

India wishes to be a permanent member. The argument has two sides, and the exam may test either one.

Two views. For the exam: India's case rests on its population, which is about one fifth of the world's, on being the world's largest democracy, on its regular participation in UN peacekeeping and initiatives, on its growing economy, on its regular financial contributions, and on the symbolic boost a permanent seat would give. Another reading: objections come from some states. Pakistan opposes the bid, and there are concerns over India's nuclear weapons and its troubled relations with Pakistan. Making India permanent could also create a chain effect, since Brazil, Germany, Japan and possibly South Africa would then press for seats, and Africa and South America are still unrepresented.

The UN in a unipolar world

After the Cold War the US became the only superpower. It is also the largest financial contributor to the UN, the host country, has many of its nationals in the UN bureaucracy and holds a veto. For these reasons its power cannot easily be checked by the UN. The textbook's view, however, is that the UN still matters: it gives the rest of the world a space where arguments against specific US attitudes are heard and where compromises can be shaped through dialogue.

Other international organisations

The UN is only one of many bodies that shape world politics. Here is the set the chapter covers.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: IMF votes are unequal, with the US at 16.52 per cent. In reality: voting power in the IMF follows each member's financial contribution, called a quota, so richer members have more say. Developing countries have long argued that this gives them too little voice, which links the IMF to the larger debate about fairness in international institutions.

Exam traps

60-second revision

Where this chapter connects

• Before this chapter: Contemporary South Asia shows regional cooperation, where SAARC sits beside the UN as a different kind of organisation.
• Same theme: Contemporary Centres of Power explains the other power blocs whose weight shapes UN debates.
• Next: Security in the Contemporary World shows how the UN and other bodies cooperate on arms control and non-traditional threats.
• India angle: India's External Relations covers India's wider foreign policy and its role in international institutions.