Image and Reality in the UN's Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Abstract

Observers of the UN tend to fall into one of two camps when examining its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. The first sees a glass more than half full, with far greater potential for the Organization if only its member States would utilize the processes contemplated in the Charter. This group tends to be institutionalist or functionalist in its political philosophy, positing the United Nations as an independent actor in global politics, one that can influence and settle disputes and thereby contribute to international peace. Chapter VI offers the non-forcible means to this end; lack of coercive measures does not diminish the UN's effectiveness. In the other camp lie the sceptics of Chapter VI, and often of the UN as an institution. Seeing a glass nearly empty, they judge the UN a failure as an actor to end conflicts and any notion of collective security a farce. Typically realist in their political approach, the sceptics argue that the UN can reflect only the individual preferences of member States. Other than perhaps as a forum for negotiation, the Organization itself can exert little successful effort to further international peace and security. Naturally, each camp has its empirical data. The optimists typically cite two categories of UN accomplishments a history of UN diplomatic interventions that have defused tensions in certain situations; and the results of some UN peacekeeping operations. The former typically consists of a litany of missions by the Secretary-General or his Special Representatives that aim to demonstrate how his manoeuvring avoided bloodshed and led to an eventual settlement. The latter