Assessing Political Risk The International Order is Teetering on the Edge, Time for a Radical Shift

Political Risk

As a na?ve young man half a century ago, entering the headquarters of the major corporate global companies, I was introduced to the notion of political risk. Until that point, I had never considered that nations, just as individuals, were subject to credit risk ratings.

If you were to invest, or undertake substantial export business, you needed to evaluate the financial risks you were taking onboard. Assess whether your money was safe, if it could be repatriated into your own domain and converted to local currency. ?You soon discovered it was a very complicated and nuanced exercise. The most difficult to address was political risk.

Business is now global and intimately integrated. For economies to prosper requires regulation and orderly internation markets and their supply chains. Even minor disturbances can have a profound effect on a business and a nation’s wellbeing.

You must consider for an individual business whether any potential risk could undermine the credit worthiness or disrupt your supply chain you rely upon. Tactically, a decision may appear highly attractive, but when measured strategically could be against the company’s interest. The most difficult to assess is political risk, this relies upon the state of international relations and diplomacy.

Decisions by the German Government serve as examples. Germany is the largest economy in Europe that relies upon high exports of quality engineered products. The availability of abundant cheap energy is a vital component to its manufacturing and engineering competivenes. Tactically, the building of two Nord Stream gas pipelines to tap into Russia’s huge cheap energy resources seemed a good idea at the time. Is it now?

The birthrate required to maintain population levels is estimated at a ratio of 2.1 per couple, in Germany it is currently 1,5 and had been lower in previous years. In 2021 Angel Merkel in one stroke added 800,000 middle class and highly skilled Syrian political refugees, increasing the total population by 1%. This was in addition to the 600,000 already allowed in during 2015. A brilliant tactical move, but one that caused substantial stresses on Germany’s cultural cohesion and political stability.

The UK has its own example. Was the PM Liz Truss ever advised that her economic growth policies would raise interest rates and put at risk the availability of foreign funds to service the national debt mountain? Tactically the country desperately needed growth, but the funding strategy was undermined. If she was advised, did she ignore it?

Sustained growth and economic stability require investor confidence and orderly regulated international markets. Small to medium size companies can only guess at these factors, major corporates have risk committees packed with economists and risk assessment experts to guide them.

This article focusses on the political risk aspect in terms of international relations and diplomacy. Perhaps it is useful that the various diplomatic doctrines and evolution of diplomacy of the past gives a better understanding of the point we have reached and whether in a more uncertain world, pointers for change.

Need for Radical Shift

For two centuries the diplomatic establishment has proscribed what’s best in our interests. As the following review will reveal there were two fundamental weaknesses in this approach, politicians ignored the proletariat and made the false assumption that leaders of any colour would act rationally and in the interests of their citizens, they didn’t.

To control bad actors was through a doctrine of the ‘Balance of Power.’ This was introduced primarily to avoid major military conflicts and to protect the weak and vulnerable from powerful aggressors. The aim, to maintain international law and order.

Unfortunately, it lacked enforcement through international pressure, direct sanctions and as a last resort, military responses. Successful negotiations require goodwill on both sides. If this is lacking no amount of compromise or appeasement will settle issues in the long-term. The current notion of universal unanimity at all costs doesn’t work. There must be serious and immediate consequences for those nations unwilling to respect the peoples of other nations no matter how they govern themselves. Imposing your will through force on others demonstrated through history isn’t constructive either to the victim or the perpetrator.

The diplomatic structures and institutions are crumbling and need radical changes.

Already two countries should be candidates for removal from the United Nations through their maladroit actions. This action is not new, Russia was removed from the League of Nations through its invasion of Finland. Emboldened by the lack of either a UN or an adequate European response Russia still embarks on what it euphemistically calls ‘Special Operations’ against sovereign countries posing no threat and who wish to exercise their independence.

China is heading in the same direction and needs to be reigned in but for a far more different reason. It too should be a candidate, not because of its increasing military threats in Asia and corrupt behaviour in Africa, but that it negligently put the world’s economic and social well-being at an enormous risk. It developed an artificial virus incorporating a ‘gain of function’ that placed it beyond nature’s protective barriers. Millions have died as a result and economies put under so much strain that nations have had their development plans put on hold for a decade or more. ??

Nations who act in gross terms against the principles built up over two centuries and after the much spilling of blood and sacrifices suffered should not be allowed to benefit from the benevolent nature of others. The cost must be so high as to act as a deterrent.

Now is the time for the International Community to assert itself, and where there has been gross violations of international law and order, severe sanctions imposed including exclusion from the main international representative bodies like the UN, WHO and WTO.

Is the Current Framework Adequate?

Whilst many nations and global companies might be focussed on the methodologies of assessing risk is anyone assessing whether our framework for international diplomacy designed to mitigate these risks through international order and compliance are sufficient.

Have the democratic and liberal nations of the world relinquished those hard-earned lessons over centuries that delivered freedom, liberty and brotherhood and left to wither on the vine? To often we hear of compromise to settle issues, not for reasons of balancing interests but a tacit acceptance of diluted values. A form of appeasement as it were.

To often we have succumbed to notions of global acquiescence for agreements sake when we should have stood up for what we believe in. Either self-appointed representatives or authoritarian leaders determine decisions when it should be we the people. All nations are free to decide how they govern themselves if they do not harm foreign states especially by using military force not persuasive argument. Every nation has a right to liberty and self-determination. Conflicts of self-interest should be settled by diplomacy and in accordance with international order but not a compromise of the fundamental values and rights of people.

Every nation who steps outside of these parameters should be met with sanctions and military force, if necessary, treated as a pariah in the world of global trade and finance. History and experience tell us that there will never be peace if nations insist on imposing their will on others, or peoples denied their voice no matter in what form they come.

Just two extreme examples are the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Independence Movement in Scotland. In Europe the former should have been met with instant comprehensive international sanctions through the United Nations and an ultimatum to withdraw, or an international force would be formed to remove the invaders. Russia’s interests can be resolved by other means rather than be used as justification for the targeting of a nation. KGB thinking must be confined to the dustbin of history.

In Scotland a sizeable proportion of the nation seeks Independence from the United Kingdom. A Referendum of all Scottish nationals should be able to be called at any time, but as it involves two parties the remaining part of the UK should spell out unequivocally what it would mean. It would mean a border and complete separation, not just a ‘super devolution.’ Likewise, if the Scottish people for some reason did not undertake a Referendum but continued voicing in large numbers their aim, then the rest of The UK would also be entitled to have its own Referendum to separate the nations. That is true democracy.

History of Diplomacy?

?Over two centuries’ diplomats and politicians have struggled to develop a framework for peaceful co-existence between sovereign nations to allow for the safety and well-being of their citizens. Given the challenges and uncertainties that still abound across the globe, have we allowed our inertia for change to prevail at the cost of greater insecurity and poorer economic growth?

Has the time come for a radical shift in our thinking and a redoubling of our diplomatic efforts to avoid a return to the Dark Ages?

Before we look for any radical initiatives, we must remind ourselves of the limitations imposed on us by the prism through which we in the West view the world and review the benchmarks of progress.

Our view is fashioned from a western culture of democratic, liberal societies underpinned by the rights of individuals, not the state. The real world is not like that, authoritarian states of various colours are the norm, not the exception. If you add the populations of Europe and North America all together it totals 900m versus the world population of 8,000m, equivalent to 11%.? It is this small minority that gave the world from 1800’s onwards the notion of the sovereignty of nations, the rights of individuals and the industrial revolution.

Why pose the question for a radical shift now?

A major European military conflict is raging in the Ukraine after an unprovoked incursion by Russia onto Ukrainian sovereign soil. Two armies are slugging it out on an eastern front, Russian forces systematically dismantling the Ukrainian public infrastructure (a war crime), flattening of cities and villages by persistent artillery and missile barrages causing massive military and civilian deaths, injuries and inhumane suffering.

The cause cannot be ascribed to individuals or a specific regime, Russia has for some time acted as a belligerent against other nations over many decades from invasions of Finland since the 18th century right up to the Second World War and interference in the newly formed independent sates following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1988. History is repeating itself as the violence draws ever closer to the NATO borders of Western Europe.

Europe appears powerless to control the growing threat, totally relying on the USA as a guarantor for their collective sovereignty.

The GDP of Russia is a poultry $2,2tr when compared to the EU and UK combined total of $17,6tr. What made Russia believe it could prevail against such a potential powerful European adversary and enact its ‘Special Mission.’ Add to it the economic power of the US of $25,4tr the strategy is utterly bizarre. The rationale and logic must be tactical opportunism, not furtherance of strategic aims.

Europe is not the only theatre we need to be concerned with. Diplomacy is failing in other regions too.

There are national bad actors breaking out in the Middle East; surrogate terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis sponsored by another militant state Iran. Iran continues to beak anti-nuclear proliferation agreements moving ever closer to a viable and deliverable atomic weapon targeted across Europe and the Middle East. Countless treaties and peace initiatives have been drawn up to no avail.

Cast our eyes further afield and there is the dictatorship of North Korea busily developing its own nuclear arsenal threatening nations it chooses for confrontation. Acting as a buffer state for China and a readiness to supply arms to Russia in exchange for cheap oil it lacks.

China has entered the fray exercising its growing military power over internationally recognised international sea waters and trading routes. Confrontational tactics implemented against several Asian countries whilst still maintaining a fierce resistance to the nationhood of Taiwan a sister state born out of the same revolution. It also engages in corrupt international aid packages across Africa that can never be fulfilled except for the lining of pockets.

The Diplomatic Doctrine of the Balance of Power

One reason for the change in trend is that the western democratic nations have become apathetic to the protection of their democracies and freedoms and have wound down their military capabilities. There has been an undue reliance on the nuclear deterrent which is a weapon of deterrence not for attack. The balance of power has been weakened and the threads that bind nations have become unstable.

For two centuries advanced civilisations have struggled to create an international structure to create an orderly and peaceful world. The embryo of a new international diplomatic approach stemmed from an initiative that took place originally in Vienna following the Napoleonic Wars, which had dragged several powerful European nations into military conflict across the Continent.

The?Congress of Vienna?of 1814–1815 was a series of diplomatic meetings to discuss and agree upon a possible new framework for European political and constitutional order after the downfall of the French Emperor?Napoleon Bonaparte.?Participants were representatives of all European powers and other stakeholders. The Congress was chaired by?Austrian?statesman?Klemens von Metternich, and was held in?Vienna?from September 1814 to June 1815.

The objective of the Congress was to provide a long-term peace plan for Europe by settling a multitude of critical issues through negotiation, arising from the?French Revolutionary Wars?and the?Napoleonic Wars?. The goal was not simply to restore old boundaries, but to resize the main powers so they could?balance each other?and remain at peace, being at the same time benign shepherds for the smaller powers.

At the negotiation table, the position of France was weak in relation to that of?Britain,?Prussia,?Austria, and?Russia, partly due to the military strategy of its leader,?Napoleon Bonaparte, over the previous two decades, and his recent defeat.

In the settlement the parties did reach, France had to give up all recent conquests, while the other three main powers made major territorial gains around the world. Prussia added territory from smaller states:?Swedish Pomerania, most of the?Kingdom of Saxony, and the western part of the former?Duchy of Warsaw. Austria gained much of?northern Italy. Russia added the central and eastern parts of the Duchy of Warsaw. All agreed upon ratifying the creation of the new?Kingdom of the Netherlands, which had been created just months before from formerly Austrian territory, and would serve as a buffer between France and the?German Confederation.

The trigger was?Napoleonic France's?defeat and?surrender in May 1814, which brought to an end 23 years of nearly continuous war. Remarkably, negotiations continued unaffected despite the outbreak of fighting sparked by Napoleon's return from exile and his resumption of power in France during the?Hundred Days?of March to July 1815. The Congress's agreement was signed nine days before Napoleon's final defeat at?Waterloo?on 18 June 1815.

Some historians have criticised the outcomes of the Congress for causing the subsequent suppression of national, democratic, and liberal movements,?and it has been seen as a reactionary settlement for the benefit of traditional monarchs. Others have praised the Congress for protecting Europe from large and widespread wars for almost a century.

The name "Congress of Vienna" was not meant to suggest a formal?plenary session, but rather the creation of a diplomatic organizational framework bringing together stakeholders of all flocks to enable the expression of opinions, interests and sentiments and facilitate discussion of general issues among them.

Before the Congress of Vienna, the common method of diplomacy involved the exchange of notes sent back and forth among the several capitals and separate talks in different places, a cumbersome process that required much in the way of time and transportation.

The format set at the Congress of Vienna would serve as inspiration for the 1856 peace conference brokered by France (the?Congress of Paris) that settled the?Crimean War. The Congress of Vienna settlement gave birth to the?Concert of Europe, an international political doctrine that emphasized the maintaining of political boundaries, the balance of powers, and respecting spheres of influence and which guided foreign policy among the nations of Europe until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

To reach amicable consensus among the many different nations holding great interest in the settlement proceedings, informal, face-to-face deliberative sessions were held where opinions and proposed solutions could be inventoried. Also, of great importance to the parties convened in Vienna were the opportunities presented at wine and dinner functions to establish formal relationships with one another and build-up of diplomatic networks.

The?Treaty of Chaumont?in 1814 had reaffirmed decisions that had been made already and that would be ratified by the more important Congress of Vienna. They included the establishment of a confederated Germany, the division of Italy into independent states, the restoration of the Bourbon kings of Spain, and the enlargement of the Netherlands to include what in 1830 became modern Belgium. The Treaty of Chaumont became the cornerstone of the European Alliance that formed the balance of power for decades. Congress functioned through formal meetings such as working groups and official diplomatic functions; however, a large portion of the Congress was conducted informally at salons, banquets, and balls.

Virtually every state in Europe had a delegation in Vienna – more than 200 states and princely houses were represented at the Congress.?In addition, there were representatives of cities, corporations, religious organizations (for instance, abbeys) and special interest groups, e.g., a delegation representing German publishers, demanding a?copyright?law and freedom of the press.?With them came a host of courtiers, secretaries, civil servants and ladies to enjoy the magnificent social life of the Austrian court. The Congress was noted for its lavish entertainment: according to a famous joke of an attendee, it danced a lot but did not move forward.?On the other hand, the possibilities for informal gatherings created by this "side program" may have helped ensure the Congress's success.

The most complex topic at the Congress was the Polish-Saxon Crisis. Russia wanted most of Poland, and Prussia wanted all of Saxony, whose king had allied himself with Napoleon. The tsar would like to become king of Poland.?Austria analysed this and concluded it could make Russia too powerful, a view which was supported by Britain. The result was a deadlock; a proposed solution: admit France to the inner circle, and then France would support Austria and Britain. The three nations?signed a treaty on 3 January 1815, among only the three of them, agreeing to go to war against Russia and Prussia, if necessary, to prevent the Russo-Prussian plan from coming to fruition.

When the Tsar heard of the treaty, he agreed to a compromise that satisfied all parties on 24 October 1815. Russia received most of the Napoleonic?Duchy of Warsaw?as a "Kingdom of Poland" – called?Congress Poland, with the tsar as a king ruling it independently of Russia. However, the majority of?Greater Poland?and?Kuyavia, as well as the?Che?mno Land, were given to Prussia and mostly included within the newly formed?Grand Duchy of Posen?(Poznań), while?Kraków?became a?free city?as a shared protectorate of Austria, Prussia and Russia. Furthermore, the tsar was forbidden from uniting his new realm with?the parts of Poland that had been incorporated into Russia in the 1790s. Prussia received 60 percent of Saxony, much of which became part of the new?Province of Saxony?from 1816 (the now-Prussian parts of?Lower Lusatia?and some other areas instead became part of the?Province of Brandenburg, with Prussian?Upper Lusatia?becoming part of the?Province of Silesia?by 1825); the remainder of Saxony returned to King?Frederick Augustus I,?as his?Kingdom of Saxony.

The Final Act, embodying all the separate treaties, was signed on 9 June 1815 (nine days before the?Battle of Waterloo). The seeds of a new Europe were laid, and the defining of sovereign states had been sown for the history to follow to test their robustness. No more foreign intervention no matter the character of their establishments be it monarchs, republics, czars, dictators or simply tyrants, that was for the citizens to decide.

For the time this was mighty heady stuff.

Alexander I of Russia?considered himself a guarantor of European security

Representatives at the Congress agreed to numerous other territorial changes.

The?Papal States?were restored to the Pope.

A large?United Kingdom of the Netherlands?was formed for the?Prince of Orange, including both the old?United Provinces?and the formerly Austrian-ruled territories in the Southern Netherlands, which gave way to the formation of a democratic state, formally headed by a monarch (constitutional monarchy).

Switzerland?was enlarged, and Swiss neutrality was established. Swiss mercenaries had played a significant role in European wars for several hundred years: the Congress intended to put a stop to these activities permanently.

The United Kingdom received parts of the?West Indies?at the expense of the Netherlands and Spain and kept the former Dutch colonies of?Ceylon?and the?Cape Colony?as well as?Malta?and?Heligoland. Under the Treaty of Paris (1814)?Article VIII?France ceded to Britain the islands of "Tobago?and?Saint Lucia, and of the?Isle of France?and its dependencies, especially?Rodrigues?and Les?Seychelles", and under the?Treaty between Great Britain and Austria, Prussia and Russia, respecting the Ionian Islands?(signed in Paris on 5 November 1815), as one of the treaties signed during the?Peace of Paris (1815), Britain obtained a protectorate over the?United States of the Ionian Islands.

The Congress of Vienna has been criticized by 19th century and more recent historians and politicians for ignoring national and liberal impulses, and for imposing a stifling?reaction?on the Continent. It was an integral part in what became known as the?Conservative Order, in which democracy and civil rights associated with the?American?and?French Revolutions?were de-emphasized.

In the 20th century, however, historians and politicians looking backward came to praise the Congress as well, because they saw it did prevent another widespread European war for nearly 100 years (1815–1914) and a significant step in the transition to a new international order in which peace was largely maintained through diplomatic dialogue. Among these is?Henry Kissinger, who in 1954 wrote his?doctoral dissertation,?A World Restored, on it and Paul Schroeder. Historian and jurist Mark Jarrett argues that the diplomatic congress format marked "the true beginning of our modern era". To his analyses the Congress organisation was deliberate conflict management and was the first genuine attempt to create an international order based upon consensus rather than conflict. "Europe was ready," Jarrett states, "to accept an unprecedented degree of international cooperation in response to the French Revolution.”?Historian Paul Schroeder argues that the old formulae for "Balance of Power" were in fact highly destabilizing and predatory. He says the Congress of Vienna avoided them and instead set up rules that produced a stable and benign equilibrium. The Congress of Vienna was the first of a series of international meetings that came to be known as the?Concert of Europe, which was an attempt to forge a peaceful?Balance of Power?in Europe. It was a very important precursor as a model for later organizations such as the?League of Nations?in 1919 and the?United Nations?in 1945.

The arrangements made by the Four Great Powers sought to ensure future disputes would be settled in a manner that would avoid the terrible wars of the previous 20 years.?Although the Congress of Vienna preserved the Balance of Power in Europe, it could not check the spread of revolutionary movements across the continent?some 30 years later.

Some authors have suggested that the Congress of Vienna may have provided a model for settling multiple interlocking conflicts in Eastern Europe that arose after the break-up of the Soviet Union. What an opportunity was missed then to bring Russia into the European fold.

The?League of Nations

?Société des Nations?or better known as the League of Nations was the first worldwide?intergovernmental organisation?whose principal mission was to maintain?world peace.?It was founded on 10 January 1920 by the?Paris Peace Conference?that ended the?First World War. The main organization ceased operations on 18 April 1946 when many of its components were relocated into the new?United Nations. As the template for modern global governance, the League profoundly shaped the modern world.

The League's primary goals were stated in its?eponymous Covenant. They included preventing wars through?collective security?and?disarmament?and settling international disputes through negotiation and?arbitration.?

Its other concerns included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants,?human?and?drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe.?The Covenant of the League of Nations was signed on 28 June 1919 as Part I of the?Treaty of Versailles, and it became effective with the rest of the Treaty on 10 January 1920.?

Australia?was granted the right to participate as an autonomous member nation, marking the start of Australian independence on the global stage.?The first meeting of the Council of the League took place on 16 January 1920, and the first meeting of the Assembly of the League took place on 15 November 1920.

In 1919, U.S. president?Woodrow Wilson?won the?Nobel Peace Prize?for his role as the leading architect of the League.

The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift from the preceding hundred years. The League lacked its own armed force and depended on the victorious?Allies of World War I?(Britain, France, Italy and Japan were the initial permanent members of the Executive Council) to enforce its resolutions, keep to its economic sanctions, or provide an army when needed. The?Great Powers?were often reluctant to do so. Sanctions could hurt League members, so they were reluctant to comply with them.

At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members. After some notable successes and some early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the?Axis powers?in the 1930s. The credibility of the organization was weakened by the fact that the?United States?never joined. Japan and Germany left in 1933, Italy left in 1937, and Spain left in 1939. The?Soviet Union?only joined in 1934 and was expelled in 1939 after?invading Finland.?Furthermore, the League demonstrated an irresolute approach to sanction enforcement for fear it might only spark further conflict, further decreasing its credibility. One example of this hesitancy was the?Abyssinia Crisis, in which Italy's sanctions were only limited from the outset (coal and oil were not restricted), and later altogether abandoned despite Italy being declared the aggressors in the conflict. The onset of the?Second World War in 1939?showed that the League had failed its primary purpose; it was largely inactive until its abolition. The League lasted for 26 years; the?United Nations?(UN) replaced it in 1946 and inherited several agencies and organisations founded by the League.

Current scholarly consensus views that, even though the League failed to achieve its main goal of?world peace, it did manage to build new roads towards expanding the?rule of law?across the globe; strengthened the concept of?collective security, gave a voice to smaller nations; fostered?economic stabilization and financial stability, especially in Central Europe in the 1920s; helped to raise awareness of problems like?epidemics,?slavery,?child labour, colonial tyranny,?refugee crises?and general working conditions through its numerous commissions and committees; and paved the way for new forms of statehood, as the?mandate system?put the colonial powers under international observation.?Professor?David Kennedy?portrays the League as a unique moment when international affairs were "institutionalised", as opposed to the pre-First World War methods of law and politics.

The experiences and shortfalls of the League of Nations did add materially to the building blocks for dealing with international relations that passed into the current body the United Nations.

United Nations Charter

To evaluate whether our current framework is adequate it is instructive to read extracts of the United Nations Charter and ask whether the international community is abiding by its aims and importantly whether there are members who are not worthy to be in this prestigious organisation and would be best excluded.

Opening Statement

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Just this opening statement you can easily list the nations beyond the pale, not prepared to change their ways but to abuse the United Nations and still expect to enjoy the fruits of global trade and international regulation.

Extracted Articles of the Charter

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1.???? To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2.???? To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3.???? To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4.???? To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1.???? The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2.???? All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3.???? All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4.???? All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5.???? All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6.???? The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7.???? Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Article 3

The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.

Article 4

1.???? Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

2.???? The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 5

A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 11

1.???? The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.

2.???? The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.

Article 12

1.???? While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.

2.???? The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters.

?

Article 23

1.???? The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.

2.???? The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.

3.???? Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.

Article 24

1.???? In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

2.???? In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

3.???? The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

?

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1.???? All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2.???? Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3.???? The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1.???? There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2.???? The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3.???? The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4.???? The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1.???? The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2.???? Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 92

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

Article 93

1.???? All Members of the United Nations are?ipso facto?parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

2.???? A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 94

1.???? Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

2.???? If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

Article 95

Nothing in the present Charter shall prevent Members of the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future.

Article 96

1.???? The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

2.???? Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

Review of Progress

Since the formation of the United Nations fortunately major conflicts have been avoided. The most notable conflicts have been Algeria, Aden, Mau Mau, Suez, Korea, Tibet, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ireland, Falklands, Cuba, Hungary, East Germany, still too many conflicts that could have been avoided.

Perhaps with more robust concerted compliance by the international community we could at least halved the rate.

(Note: Appreciation to Wikileaks for their historical references)

?

Ron Kirk

Author

Cancale, France

July 2024