The United Nations (UN) is a
multi-national body, which has the primary purpose of joining all of the
world’s countries together with the set goal of maintaining peace and bringing
development to the world. With this heavy task at hand the UN must have a sense
of legitimacy. For without legitimacy any action or proposition set forward by
this entity could be viewed as not having any real affect, or illegitimate.
This sense of legitimacy, as argued in “Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life
of the UN Security Council” by Ian Hurd, states that the legitimacy comes from
the symbol that the worlds greatest powers come together in the Security
Council for peace and positive development. I argue that the overall sense of
legitimacy clearly comes from the Security Council and without it the UN would
appear as an illegitimate body.
The
Security Council consists of 5 permanent states, The U.S, Russia, China, Great
Britain, and France, with 10 other non-permanent states. This body’s purpose is
to maintain global security when needed and to project force as well. The
Security Council itself derives its power from the symbol of power and the
projection of that power if needed. Within the Security Council 5 of its permanent
members are the leading superpowers in the world the power is there. For if 5
nations that were not leading superpowers were permanent members of the
Security Council it would lose legitimacy for the ability to project power
would be lost. This projection of power in the Security council also leads to
the overall legitimacy of the United Nations.
Without it any decree, or action for that matter, handed down by the
United Nations would have no backing by powerful states to enforce it and
therefore be illegitimate. It is power that fuels the United Nations
legitimacy.
I agree with your argument that the Security Council's legitimacy is determined by the involvement of five of the world's top superpowers. However, if this is the case, what is the purpose of the 10 non-permanent members?
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is crucial to the legitimacy of the UN for the 5 permanent members to be current superpowers, however, would you agree that those members should have exclusive veto power? Also, do you believe that the 5 permanent members should be changed every certain number of years, or at least voted to keep them as the 5?
ReplyDeleteI argued largely the same point in my post so I agree with a lot of the points you make in that the legitimacy of the council is determined by the contributions of the 5 superpowers, however I believe that the non permanent members add a lot of legitimacy as well, having many nations around the world contribute.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the members of the UN Security Council contribute to the organization's legitimacy. You make a very good point by posing the question of whether the security council would be just as powerful if the 5 permanent seats were filled by insignificant players in the international system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most of you are saying about the blog post, especially the fact that the 5 permanent leading superpowers in the United Nations make it significantly more legitimate; in my opinion mostly for the same reason as Zack stated, such as the fact that since they are the superpowers they have more authority in the world and that gives more credibility to what they decide upon. However the fact that there are 10 other non-permanent non-superpowers in the United Nations security council obviously has a reason, as Sarah pointed out in her comment. I think that they should not be forgotten or taken for granted to any extent, mostly because i think that they are there so there is more say globally in what the issue is and not only the top-tier power states making the decisions.
ReplyDeleteZack, I hold the same stance you have that the legitimacy of the UN is created by the 5 super powers that hold a permanent seat. At the same time, would you agree that that may be one of the biggest caveats of the security council? So much power is concentrated in just those 5 seats that it truly exemplifies the unequal distribution of power in the UN, where the permanent 5 has the ability to really guide the UN's actions
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance that the Security Council, which gives veto power to the 5 superpowers, legitimizes the UN. I think if you had dived into the debate over whether or not granting the veto power to the same 5 superpowers is productive then your argument would have been stronger. You barely grazed the surface of an even bigger debate over the legitimacy of the UN that has been challenged by independent action from states like the US who, in some cases like Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, have adopted the UN's job of intervening.
ReplyDelete