Modern Effectiveness of the UN and War Crime Policies
“Even if things are set a certain way - go sit with somebody, go talk to them and say this doesn’t make sense, this is wrong, how can we find better pathways?” - Jared Kushner to Lex Friedman
Succeeding many failures in creating a global, multinational organization, the United Nations (UN) is the pinnacle of international governance. The UN’s foundation prompted cornerstone policy that shaped the future of war, peace, and humanitarian aid.
As is common with utopian ideals, however, theoretical policy does not always reflect reality. International politics—throughout the mid 20th and early 21st centuries—is filled with examples of nation-states violating war crime policy set by the UN, including key member states like The United States (US), Russia, China, and Israel that spearheaded such policy within the UN from the start.
This apparent hypocrisy raises the question: how effective are war crime policies set by international governing bodies like the United Nations? And further, what is the real power and purpose of these assemblies if they can’t enforce their own policy?
A Brief History
The United Nations was established in 1945 following the end of World War II with the primary aim of maintaining international peace and security. The UN's role in addressing war crimes and promoting international justice has evolved over the years.
Key Milestones
Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials (1945-1948): These trials were the first major international war crimes tribunals. They prosecuted Nazi and Japanese leaders responsible for atrocities committed during World War II, thereby setting the precedent for holding individuals accountable for war crimes.
1948 Genocide Convention: The UN adopted the Genocide Convention, which defined genocide as a crime under international law. It established a legal framework for the prevention and punishment of genocide, a particularly heinous loo war crime.
Establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (1998): The Rome Statute established the ICC as a permanent international court to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The ICC started functioning in 2002.
Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals (1990s): The UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to address war crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars and the Rwandan Genocide. These tribunals contributed to the prosecution of individuals responsible for war crimes.
UN Peacekeeping and Accountability: UN peacekeeping missions have increasingly included provisions for holding peacekeepers accountable for war crimes and human rights abuses. Scandals such as those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlighted the need for such measures.
Modern Ineffecacies
Security Council Vetoes: The UN Security Council is the primary body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, but the veto power held by each of its five permanent members (the P5: the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) can be an obstacle to decisive action. Veto power can be used to shield countries or allies from accountability for war crimes, making it difficult to achieve consensus on critical issues.
Limited Enforcement Capabilities: The UN lacks a standing military force of its own, relying on member states to contribute troops and resources for peacekeeping operations. This can lead to logistical and political challenges, hindering the UN's ability to effectively enforce war crime policies in conflict zones.
Selective Enforcement: The perception of selective enforcement of war crime policies based on political interests has eroded international confidence in the UN's ability to maintain impartiality. Allegations of bias in selecting which cases to pursue and which to ignore have raised concerns.
Lack of Jurisdiction Over All States: Not all countries are party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the ICC's jurisdiction is limited. Some countries refuse to cooperate with the court or do not recognize its authority, making it challenging to bring perpetrators to justice.
Resource Constraints: The UN faces resource constraints in conducting investigations, collecting evidence, and prosecuting war criminals. This can slow down the process and hinder the effectiveness of international justice mechanisms.
Complex Legal Procedures: International legal proceedings can be lengthy and complex, with numerous appeals and delays. This can lead to frustration and a sense of impunity among those awaiting justice.
Political Interference: War crime investigations and prosecutions are often influenced by politics. Powerful states may use their influence to obstruct or manipulate proceedings, impacting the UN's ability to enforce war crime policies impartially.
Limited Deterrence: The UN's efforts to prevent war crimes through deterrence have had mixed results. Perpetrators often believe they can escape accountability, and in some cases, the UN's actions have not been sufficient to deter potential offenders.
Ineffectiveness in Ongoing Conflicts: In protracted conflicts, the UN may struggle to effectively intervene and enforce war crime policies. Political and military complexities can hinder the UN's ability to make a meaningful impact in such situations.
Resource Allocation and Bureaucracy: The UN's bureaucratic structure can lead to inefficiencies in resource allocation and decision-making, potentially delaying the response to war crimes.
Being Soft on War Crime: Real Life Case Studies
Bosnian Genocide (1995): The Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed, was a defining moment in the Bosnian War. It represented one of the most horrific war crimes in Europe since World War II. The UN's role in this tragedy was marred by its inability to prevent the massacre despite the presence of a UN-designated safe zone in Srebrenica. The Dutch UN peacekeeping force (Dutchbat) was outnumbered and ill-equipped to protect the civilians. The UN's response was widely criticized for being ineffective, and it demonstrated a lack of willingness to intervene decisively in ongoing conflicts.
Syrian Civil War (2011-present): The ongoing conflict in Syria has presented a complex and challenging situation for the UN. The Security Council's divisions have prevented it from taking robust action to prevent war crimes and hold perpetrators accountable. The Russian and Chinese vetoes have blocked resolutions that could have referred the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has raised concerns about the UN's ability to ensure accountability for the numerous war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons and the targeting of civilians.
Rohingya Crisis (2017-present): The violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, widely seen as a genocide, has exposed the limitations of the UN's ability to address war crimes and ensure accountability. Despite widespread evidence of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the UN faced criticism for not acting swiftly and decisively to prevent the crisis and hold the Myanmar government accountable. The complicated geopolitical dynamics involving China's support for Myanmar and the role of the Security Council have hindered a more robust UN response.
Myanmar Military Coup (2021): The military coup in Myanmar in 2021 and the associated human rights abuses, including alleged war crimes, have presented another challenge for the UN. While the UN and international community have expressed concern and imposed sanctions, they have been limited in their ability to influence the actions of the Myanmar military. This situation highlights the constraints of the UN's ability to enforce war crime policies when faced with a non-cooperative regime and complex power dynamics.
The 2014 Gaza War: During the summer of 2014, a significant escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict occurred as Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in response to rocket attacks from Gaza. The conflict resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, damage to civilian infrastructure, and the displacement of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. While Israel maintained that it was acting in self-defense and taking measures to minimize civilian harm, many international organizations, including the United Nations, alleged that Israel had committed war crimes.
Despite significant evidence of potential war crimes, there was limited international action to hold Israel accountable. The United Nations Human Rights Council established a commission to investigate alleged war crimes, but its findings did not lead to criminal prosecutions or sanctions.
The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, provided political and military support during the conflict. This support contributed to the perception of a soft approach to Israeli actions and a reluctance to hold Israel accountable for its military operations.
While the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine in 2015, it has faced challenges in advancing to a full investigation. Despite evidence of potential war crimes by Israeli forces, the ICC's efforts have been met with resistance from both Israel and the United States.
Hamas and Palestinian Armed Groups: Hamas, an organization governing the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian armed groups have also faced allegations of war crimes for rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians and the use of populated areas for military purposes.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply intertwined with political complexities, and the involvement of influential international actors complicates efforts to hold all parties accountable for war crimes. Political considerations, such as diplomatic relationships and regional stability, have hindered the impartial pursuit of justice.
While there have been international condemnations of rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups, there is a perception that the international community's response to these actions has been less consistent and less vigorous compared to its reactions to Israeli military operations.
The absence of an effective mechanism for ensuring accountability and reconciliation in the region has led to a sense of impunity for perpetrators of war crimes on both sides.
Further Reading
コメント