It is inevitable that states have to put aside their national boundaries and come together to “cooperate, adjust, accommodate and compromise” to solve global problems and resolve conflicts which by definition of globalisation (the interconnectedness of states) would have spill-over effects on political, economic or environmental issues. Thus it is only logical to create an international organization (IO) that meets those inter-national needs. That is exactly what the United Nations (UN) provides, an avenue for nation states to voice their opinions over global issues. However, IOs have their managerial and implemental limitations. In addition, advances in technological communication, increasing emergence of non-state actors on the international scene cause further complications to the bureaucratic system. I will argue that though IOs are not ideal for implementing solutions, their existence brings about centralization to their efforts that help resolve global issues
The vision of an IO is to effect change through legal and moral authority. There are many forms of IOs; the principal distinction between them is the entitlement to memberships. Inter-governmental organisations are organisations whereby only state representatives are entitled to become members. Alternatively, non-government organisations (NGOs) are organisations where membership is made up of non-state actors. To be a truly effective IO which can attempt to meet the challenges of the mission it wishes to serve, the organisation must have a moral cause, legal structure, inter-jurisdictional recognition and economic strength. Due to the limits of this essay, I will confine the scope of the international organization to the WTO, United Nations (UN) missions and programmes and the efforts of NGOs under the UN mandate.
IOs face limitations in implementing their solutions as they are reluctant to violate the sovereignty of member states. The UN cannot force a country to impose sanctions on another if the country feels that it is inconsistent with the best interests of their own state. State sovereignty versus UN right to authority and autonomy comes into question. Should the UN ignore the state’s authority over such issues or should the “principle of sovereignty rationalise states' behaviour”? That in itself is another debatable issue which does not encompass the scope of this essay. However, my focus in relation to this topic is to draw attention to the fact that the UN is unable to fully resolve issues and implement their peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction solutions due to their limited autonomy. As a result UN gets criticized for not being an efficient solution provider and their passive voice frequently lead to disagreements among member states itself thus creating new inter-national problems.
It was felt in 2004 that the UN should have taken a stronger stand in “pushing for sanctions” against Congo where 232,000 refugees were killed. Similarly, in Darfur, where the genocide crisis still persists till this day and “2.2 million civilians have been displaced” , the Human Rights Watch criticized the UN for failing to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government. Human Rights Watch stated that “the Security Council should have imposed an oil embargo on the Sudanese government rather than simply threatening to take action ‘to affect Sudan’s petroleum sector.” They felt that by failing to impose an oil embargo on Sudan, the UN guaranteed that the Sudanese government would be able to follow through with the scorched- earth campaign in Darfur. Despite widespread awareness of the issues that exist in Darfur, the Sudanese government, along with its allies have managed to avoid the imposition of sanctions on those responsible for...