World referee? What UN? What International Law?

Raju Korti
I pose this question not as a sceptic of multilateralism but as someone who once believed that the United Nations was humanity’s last moral firewall against brute power. The UN was born out of the ruins of the Second World War, premised on the idea that collective security, dialogue and international law could prevent a relapse into global catastrophe. Eight decades later, as I survey the global landscape, that promise appears badly frayed.

The United Nations Charter is unambiguous in its lofty objectives. It commits member states to maintaining international peace and security, resolving disputes peacefully, respecting sovereignty and upholding human rights. The General Assembly offers universal representation, with 193 member states ostensibly equal in voice. Yet real power resides in the Security Council, particularly its five permanent members with veto powers: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. This structural imbalance, designed in 1945 to reflect the victors of a world war, has today become the organisation’s Achilles heel.

UN chief with Putin

The most glaring evidence of the UN’s diminishing efficacy lies in its paralysis during active conflicts. The war in Ukraine has exposed how international law collapses when a permanent Security Council member is the alleged violator. Russia’s invasion, widely condemned as a breach of the UN Charter, has resulted in countless resolutions stalled or vetoed. The General Assembly has passed non-binding resolutions expressing outrage, but outrage without enforcement has proven hollow.

A similar erosion of credibility is visible in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Despite mounting civilian casualties, repeated calls for ceasefires have been blocked or diluted by vetoes. International humanitarian law, which is supposed to protect non-combatants, appears more aspirational than enforceable. Investigations are announced, reports are written, but accountability remains elusive. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court may issue observations or warrants, yet their effectiveness depends entirely on state cooperation, which powerful nations routinely withhold when it suits them.

Elsewhere, the story repeats itself with grim consistency. In Sudan, a devastating civil war has unfolded with minimal global intervention. In Myanmar, military rulers continue to defy international pressure years after overthrowing an elected government. In the Sahel and parts of Africa, coups and armed insurgencies flourish despite sanctions and statements of concern. The UN often arrives late with humanitarian aid, after violence has already reshaped realities on the ground.

This brings me to international law itself. In theory, it is the civilising glue that binds nations. In practice, it has become selectively invoked and unevenly enforced. Smaller states are expected to comply, while larger ones reinterpret, ignore or weaponise the law. There is no global police force, no automatic enforcement mechanism, and no meaningful penalties for defiance beyond economic sanctions, which themselves are applied inconsistently. Law without enforceability is reduced to moral suggestion, not binding obligation.

At the heart of the problem lies a contradiction the UN has never resolved. Sovereignty is sacred, yet intervention is sometimes necessary. Power is meant to be checked, yet the most powerful enjoy immunity through vetoes. Consensus is ideal, yet urgency demands action. This contradiction has turned the UN into a talk shop at precisely the moment when decisive collective action is needed most.

As a founding member of the United Nations and a consistent advocate of multilateralism, India has long argued that global governance structures must reflect contemporary realities, not post war hierarchies. Its repeated calls for Security Council reform, including permanent membership for itself, are rooted in this logic. India’s position on conflicts has generally emphasised dialogue, sovereignty and restraint, sometimes drawing criticism for its caution, but also reflecting a deep distrust of interventionist adventurism.

India’s growing global stature places it in a delicate position. It benefits from a rules-based international order, yet it also recognises that the current system is skewed. Its role as a peacekeeping contributor, a voice of the Global South and a bridge between rival blocs gives it moral capital, but limited leverage. If the UN is to be revitalised, countries like India will need to push not just for representation but for enforceability, transparency and accountability in international law.

As I look at the world today, the uncomfortable conclusion is that both the United Nations and international law have not become irrelevant, but they have become least effective where it matters most. They function well in drafting declarations, managing development goals and coordinating aid. They falter when confronting naked power. Until the gap between principle and power is narrowed, the UN will remain a noble idea trapped in an unforgiving world, and international law a language spoken fluently but obeyed selectively.