The Sovereignty of States and the United Nations

Of late the United Nations is acting as agent to the United States by enforcing the principles and ideology of the US with regard to other nations. It is also promoting the American vision of the world. The institutional order of the United Nations was influenced by the United States. Subsequent to the end of the Cold War, the domination of the UN by the US increased. This was demonstrated by the US invasion of Iraq, which seriously damaged the institutional order of the UN.

The US had been successfully utilizing the UN to redraft the security and peace issues of the world, following the September 11 attacks. Its initiatives in Afghanistan were accepted by most of the members. This acquiescence was further established in the Security Council Resolution 1373, which addressed terrorism. Nevertheless, most of member states did not support the US invasion of Iraq and condemned it. The present Charter based institutional framework of the UN needs to be redesigned in order to have an impartial legal order (Johnstone).

Furthermore, the UN peace keeping forces have to restore peace within and between the member states. In addition, they have to protect human rights and ensure that all the member states respect human rights within their nations. However, there is a move to create a new world order that is independent of sovereign states. Such a world order is to bring about the substitution of international politics by domestic politics. Scholars in the field of international peace and strategic studies are analyzing the theoretical implications and the outcomes of such humanitarian interventions (Moller, 2000).

The international law supported and organized the sovereignty of failed states through various standards such as the principles of nonintervention; after providing due respect to the sovereignty of failed states, and maintaining equality among other member states. However, these standards posed some threats to the legal obligations of the member states that attempted to protect and implement human rights in their nations. At present the UN frequently interferes with the sovereignty of the failed states. There is considerable opposition to such interference (Mohamed).

The question thrown by such debates is whether the UN’s intervention in failed states, should be to identify a state’s sovereignty should depend on its capability to function or its formal legal position. The UN Charter prohibits any intervention in a member country’s internal issues. However, the UN has been frequently doing so. This is illustrated by its interventions in Liberia, East Timor, Kosovo, and Somalia the UN disregarded its Charter’s provisions and made it clear that it would not adhere to the principle of non ¬– intervention (Mohamed).