The UN as Global Police Force and Negotiation Facilitator
This paper evaluates the United Nations as both a global police authority and a negotiation facilitator in the post-World War II era. Drawing on Mingst and Karns (2016), it examines the scope of UN authority, the international problems it addresses, the enforcement tools at its disposal, and its chief structural limitations. The analysis finds that UN authority is largely determined by member states—particularly the United States—and that its resolutions carry limited enforcement power. Despite peacekeeping missions and human rights declarations, the organization has struggled with bureaucratic dysfunction, political infighting, and dependence on powerful nations to act. The paper concludes that the UN's utility depends heavily on member-state cooperation, which remains inconsistent.
- Introduction: The UN's Role in the Post-War World: UN's human rights record and enforcement gaps
- Scope of UN Authority: Member states determine the limits of UN power
- International Problems the UN Seeks to Address: Poverty, health, trafficking, and conflict challenges
- Methods of Enforcement and Persuasion: Peacekeeping missions, resolutions, and charters
- Chief Limitations of the UN: Political dysfunction and U.S. hegemonic interests
- Conclusion: The UN's Constrained Utility: UN effectiveness depends on member-state cooperation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Maintains a clear organizational structure by addressing each analytical dimension—scope, problems, methods, and limitations—in dedicated sections, making the argument easy to follow.
- Uses direct quotations from Mingst and Karns (2016) effectively to ground claims in scholarly authority, balancing textbook evidence with current real-world examples.
- Provides concrete examples—UN resolutions on Israel, the Iraq invasion, the Syrian conflict, and Venezuela—to illustrate abstract institutional limitations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates sustained critical analysis of an international institution, moving beyond description to evaluate why the UN falls short of its mandate. Rather than simply cataloguing UN functions, the author interrogates the power dynamics between member states and the organization itself, showing how institutional design constrains effectiveness.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear expository structure: an introductory paragraph frames the thesis and previews the paper's scope; four body sections address authority, problems, enforcement methods, and limitations in sequence; a brief transitional paragraph synthesizes the argument; and a conclusion returns to the founding context before delivering a final evaluative judgment. This pattern suits undergraduate political science writing well.
Introduction: The UN's Role in the Post-War World
As Mingst and Karns (2016) note, the United Nations has played a predominant role in setting the standard for human rights — and it did so in 1948, three years after the conclusion of World War II. However, setting standards is not the same as enforcing them, and the UN's declaration of human rights has been fairly toothless in terms of holding nations accountable through any type of police action. Global police action, when it does occur, tends to come from the United States, which emerged as the world leader among nations in the post-war era. Mingst and Karns (2016) state explicitly that "much of the UN's success in defining human rights norms, monitoring respect for human rights, and promoting human rights has depended on the activities of the growing international human rights network of NGOs — the third UN" (p. 218). UN-led partnerships have not done much to ensure human safety: "the lack of local ownership of programs, inadequate institutional accountability measures, politicization of some programs, and the need for a steady stream of financial resources" have all served to undermine UN-led approaches to serving as a force for good in the post-war world (Mingst & Karns, 2016, p. 268). This paper addresses the issue of the UN's scope of authority, the kinds of international problems it seeks to ameliorate or resolve, its methods of enforcement, and its chief limitations.
Scope of UN Authority
The scope of the UN's authority to act as an enforcement institution or negotiation facilitator is essentially determined by the individual nations themselves. While nearly 200 countries are member states of the UN, those member states are the ones who ultimately wield the power. They can form alliances among themselves against other member states — for instance, if one group wants to sanction another. The UN is fundamentally a forum where such negotiations take place. It has a World Court — the International Court of Justice — and the Security Council is responsible for monitoring issues and issuing reports, as it did in the Middle East in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The UN had reported that Iraq was not hiding weapons of mass destruction, yet that finding did no good because the United States determined to invade anyway.
The UN can also adopt resolutions that identify states as human rights abusers. In 2016, the UN adopted a resolution identifying Israel as a violator of the human rights of Palestinians, yet the United States has attempted to negate that resolution by making it unlawful for individual Americans to boycott Israel and advocate on behalf of the oppressed in alignment with the UN's position. Thus, the UN's scope of authority is essentially determined by individual member states and the extent to which they choose to cooperate with what the broader UN body is doing.
International Problems the UN Seeks to Address
The kinds of international problems that the UN seeks to ameliorate or resolve tend to be rooted in areas it can actively engage — such as poverty, health crises like the spread of AIDS in Africa, human trafficking, child enslavement, and terrorism. It works in partnerships with other countries at the local level, but there are mixed levels of success in terms of the UN's ability to meet its goals. Though the seriousness of these problems warrants a global rather than a regional or state response, the globe faces enough challenges that communities directly affected must get involved and take ownership of their own problems.
The concept of altruism may still exist, but most countries leading the world today are not interested in altruism for its own sake. They may provide loans to other countries — as China has done with Venezuela — to help get them through tough times, but they expect repayment and will claim whatever collateral was pledged if loans are defaulted on, just as Russia did with Venezuela when it reportedly took a shipment of gold from the struggling state (DeMarche, 2019). Nonetheless, the best approach to solving these problems may be for nations to work together among themselves without relying on the bureaucracy of the UN to provide solutions, standards, or resolutions to guide other members. As the Council on Foreign Relations (2012) has shown, the UN's Human Rights Council is unstable and full of structural flaws, so depending on this behemoth of an organization can be quite impractical. The war in Syria is a telling example of how no one seems to know what is going on — who is harming whom, or which actors are truly responsible for atrocities on the ground (Vox, 2017).
Conclusion: The UN's Constrained Utility
Therefore, the utility of the UN is really determined by the extent to which the United States wants to use it for its own purposes. Other member states can block U.S. intentions by allying themselves and voting against resolutions the U.S. wants to adopt — such as the desire to intervene in another Middle Eastern state. The UN is at its best when acting as a forum where the nations of the world can exchange ideas and coordinate action, but because the U.S. is engaged in what amounts to a zero-sum competition for global hegemony and has expressed no interest in sharing a multipolar world with Russia or China, the UN is essentially limited and constrained by what the U.S. is willing to allow.
In conclusion, the UN was organized in the post-war era to help fill a power vacuum left by the dissolution of regional authority throughout Europe and other parts of the world. The UN promoted human rights with its 1948 declaration and put forward 13 peacekeeping operations over the course of four decades, but in that same period a great many humanitarian crises, genocides, and disasters occurred that the UN was unable to prevent, contain, or address effectively. The reason is that the UN is largely a political forum that can issue resolutions but remains dependent upon individual nations to enforce them and to police themselves. If there is no real agreement among the nations — and there is not in the current climate, particularly as the U.S. increasingly asserts unilateral authority — the utility of the UN remains very limited.
References
Council on Foreign Relations. (2012). The UN Human Rights Council: Five things to know. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnX-DTA50xM&feature=youtu.be
DeMarche, E. (2019). 840 million in gold. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-plane-in-venezuela-takes-20-tons-of-gold-flies-to-unknown-location-lawmaker-claims
Mingst, K. A., & Karns, M. P. (2016). The United Nations in the 21st century. Westview Press.
Vox. (2017). Syria's war: Who is fighting and why. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFpanWNgfQY&feature=youtu.be
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.