Introduction
Research is crucial in every academic discipline since it allows for expanding existing knowledge and identifying brand-new occurrences. It is useful for shedding light on a body of work and providing direction for further research. Both the research strategy and the data sources are important since they help elaborate on the study’s subject and give evidence to back up the purpose of the investigation. Furthermore, the research topic chosen for a study serves as a benchmark against which subsequent research efforts may be measured. More than 190 nations have joined the United Nations. They have committed to following the organization’s rules to help it fulfill its primary mission of keeping wars and conflicts worldwide at bay. The organization’s ability to exert pressure on its member states has allowed it to fulfill its mission effectively throughout the years. The UN has prevented many potential wars by resolving political disagreements and emergencies. The emergence of rivalry between global superpowers, who deploy proxies to fuel hostilities, has been a major threat to this impact.
In an increasingly linked world, governments are compelled to work together to meet emerging global concerns, elevating the importance of multilateral cooperation. Historically, multilateral forums give a platform for tiny nations to exert influence and act globally. In a multilateral international system, the authors claim that small countries possess a set of assets that offer them a comparative advantage over bigger nations. Non-state players on the international stage include media corporations, civil society organizations, multinational corporations, and social media platforms. An angry, alienated, and globalized youth, encouraged by the opportunities that followed this democratization of the world stage, helped spark the Arab Spring, one of the most major regional political revolutions in recent times.
The United Nations has had difficulty exerting its influence on the Member States and fulfilling its primary peacekeeping mission as a direct consequence of this issue. The mission of the United Nations is to preserve peace and diplomatic relations among nations worldwide, and this responsibility has given the organization great clout. The organization’s sway is shown via its member nations, which are bound by the regulations established by the organization itself. This proposal’s research topic focuses on the role of global superpower rivalry in weakening the United Nations’ influence over its Member States. It also discusses data sources, such as the CIA fact book, the United Nations database, and the Amnesty International database, and the appropriate case study research approach for this topic.
Research Question
How do global superpowers’ rivalries affect the United Nation’s duty of peacekeeping?
Research Hypothesis.
There is a significant influence on the United Nation’s duty as a global peacekeeping superpower.
Null hypothesis.
Global superpowers do not influence the United Nation’s duty of peacekeeping.
Literature Review
One’s ability to exert influence often stems from their position, network, or degree of authority. Because of the bonds formed inside institutions, shaping the actions of its members is much simpler. The United Nations, for example, can affect the actions of its members because of the scope of its authority. This is a critical discussion since it defines the function of the United Nations in encouraging the policies of various countries worldwide. It has been observed, however, that the strong and affluent nations influence the actions of the United States. The impact of these superpowers on the United Nations has been the primary subject of academic inquiry. However, there has been little effort to study how the UN affects the actions of its member states. Therefore, this part uses a variety of topics to explain how the United Nations affects the actions of its members.
Socialization
The United Nations has had a socializing effect on its members, which has led to changes in their conduct. The United Nations, as a socializing institution, sets norms for how its member nations should act within the international system. Burmester & Jankowski (2018) provide insight into the impact of the United Nations on the actions of its members. Burmester and Jankowski’s study analyzes the behavior of European nations in the UN General Assembly. The researchers have found that many meetings that European nations have attended at the United Nations have affected their conduct in the General Assembly. The voting habits of these nations have been consistent with those of a unified bloc, and there is no evidence to suggest that this has ever changed. There were three aspects of its members’ conduct that Burmester and Jankowski investigated in their study. To begin, why did member nations vote the way they did? Secondly, what kind of conduct often causes individuals to break from the group’s consensus? When it comes down to it, how do the members vote?
The socialization results seem to have a solid connection to those of Harbert (1976). Harbert (1976) claims that tiny nations all act the same when voting in the UN General Assembly. Harbert utilized political, economic, cultural, and social aspects to divide these states into several groups. Next, the investigator contrasted the microstates’ actions to those of more established nations like the United States and the Soviet Union. Voter behavior may be altered in both studies and elections. Put another way; voting districts are formed as needed. The results showed that home circumstances heavily influenced the members’ voting behavior. In addition, the United Nations contributes to progress in society. To a large extent, the United Nations is responsible for encouraging democratic practices among its member states. If a nation is more democratic, its citizens and government will act differently. For instance, the fact that it is a democracy influence how citizens behave in elections and who gets elected to office. The United Nations’ primary mission is to foster social progress by fostering the growth of institutions, policies, and ideas. Murphy (2006), however, does not elaborate on how the member nations’ actions could change due to these societal shifts. The international system’s influence on the cooperation and friendship between member nations is mapped out in considerable detail in this study. It does not show how the UN affects internal issues in member nations, which affects those countries’ conduct in the international system.
Liberal Institutionalism
In international affairs, liberal institutionalism is a theory that holds that strong international organizations may effectively reduce rivalry and wars on a global scale among liberal institutionalism’s most important players in the United Nations. It is within the United Nations’ authority to approve military operations and multilateral sanctions. The United Nations function evolves in response to new circumstances. There have been shifts in the balance of power, alterations to the global environment, and new dangers to global stability, all of which have impacted the United Nations’ traditional position (Gowlland-Debbas, 2021). War, among other major global events, may be traced back to the United Nations’ involvement in such matters. There have been other incidents that have prompted competitive behavior at the United Nations. They claim that the institution’s voting process increases the level of competitiveness for the security officer position. Therefore, some members barter their votes for monetary and political gain.
The United Nations should utilize its capabilities to improve peace and stability and to guarantee they reduce the rivalry between member nations that may lead to crises. States represented on the UN Security Council encourage their member nations to engage in pro-market, pro-security policies. According to Vreeland & Dreher (2014), some UN members have exchanged political power for financial gain. Moreover, the administration has become increasingly cynical about selling its political support for cash. Therefore, both studies conclude that bribery has increased as governments fight for UN council seats because of the United Nations’ existence. The findings of these two studies show how UN members act to win elections for high office. The study does not, however, examine how the United Nations impacts its members’ actions concerning lowering levels of rivalry and violence.
Structural Realism
Structural realists believe that the diversity of global structures may be understood in terms of their capacity for dispersion, degree of anarchy, and underlying organizing principles. This idea is crucial because it explains power distribution in international relations. Hurd (2008) illustrates the UN’s lawful authority to influence structural realism. Hurd (2008) analyzes the nations’ approaches to the UN council from the perspective of their membership. The United Nations function in global politics is unclear. Hurd argues that an appreciation of the legitimate authority of the council is essential to understanding its consequences and actions. His research shows that UN membership affects members’ adherence to structural realism. This is due to the council’s ability to impose restrictions on individual members, which alters how they act in competitive situations.
The UN may restrict the rights of its citizens in this paper. Mingst et al. (2018) cite an instance the UN exploited to restrict the authority of its members. Mali and DR Congo used force. Most of the time, the United Nations resorts to using force to curb any anarchist activity in the afflicted nations. Based on this work, Hurd (2008) proposes a legitimate explanation for international results. Regarding the UN’s day-to-day activities, Hurd also analyzes the attitude of member nations and the UN’s actions. However, Hurd does not elaborate on how the United Nations’ regular activities affect its member nations’ actions.
Literature shows that the United Nations affects its members’ actions. Nonetheless, their primary focus is on the United Nations, and their results indicate that some organization features affect the members’ actions. Furthermore, the literature emphasizes the members’ attitudes and actions toward the United Nations. However, no research has been done to determine whether or not the everyday activities of the United Nations have any effect on the behavior of its members. As a result, further study is required to fill the void left by previous works. The study by Mings et al. (2018) seems to have the most impact among all the prior studies and existing literature. It explains how the UN utilizes its authority to influence its members via military measures and multilateral sanctions. Therefore, the impact the UN has on its members’ actions is the primary topic of this research.
Data and Methodology
In this research, the United Nations will be the independent variable, while the dependent variable is its members. We anticipate independent factors to impact dependent variables. A dependent variable occurs due to the independent variable (Hennink et al., 2020). For instance, the United Nations is the independent variable because it will tentatively influence or not influence the behavior of its members. The members are the dependent variables, as their behavior will be influenced by other actions and policies of the United Nations. The research strategy chosen for a given study is of the utmost importance because it shapes the breadth and depth of the findings. Case studies are well suited for investigating the impact of the United Nations on its member nations. Using a case study will allow for comparisons in the data, which is a major advantage of this approach. Case studies are useful for drawing objective similarities between geopolitical situations involving competition among global superpowers and the UN’s inability to enforce global peace (Hanson et al., 2020). Selecting a nation that is an ally of a major power and experiencing geopolitical conflict or war will be the case study research method’s focus. The complexities of the conflict, the interplay of world superpowers, and the UN’s efforts to counter them will all be explored. It will also demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the United Nations’ numerous sanctions and the organization’s attempts to preserve peace and diplomatic ties.
Variables are features or characteristics of the notion, whereas indicators measure or quantify variables. Operationalization is the process of transforming abstract notions into quantifiable variables and indicators. The operationalization of the independent and dependent variable in research through surveys and results from peacekeeping organizations like the United Nations and non-governmental organizations worldwide that work to create peace in countries where political tension exists will be utilized to examine this theory qualitatively. The influence of global superpowers in the escalation of tension and war in different member nations may be established using data from the United Nations. In addition, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Amnesty International have extensive archives and information sheets on worldwide causes of wars. The CIA fact book is also an important source of information for this study since it provides data on many nations and their histories of terrorism and military strategies (CIA, 2021).
Additionally, Amnesty International details the many initiatives the UN and other NGOs conducted to end conflicts worldwide. Providing additional data for future studies and archiving the results is an important research function. Additionally, academic research will provide light on the UN’s diplomatic background and the difficulties it has always had to overcome to resolve these disputes.
Throughout the research methodology, information about the study parameters was plenty. However, there were limitations regarding how some of the qualitative data aligned with the variables. Different scholars had different information about the study parameters, so there was a need to do further research on the credibility of the data before including it in my study.
Discussion and Findings
Countries take vastly different approaches to international engagement, depending on factors such as the weight given to foreign policy, the transparency of foreign policy, the strength of national foreign affairs institutions, and the level of the explicit or implicit pursuit of self-interest. Opportunities like this exist not just in the major organs of the United Nations but also in its specialized agencies, funds, and programs. It is argued that the assets above, in addition to the voting power and the right to take the floor at the General Assembly and to exercise the ordinary responsibilities as members of boards across UN institutions, allow small states to assert an influence significantly greater than that. Through qualitative research, the hypothesis that the United States has a significant influence on the behavior of its members upholds. There are several ways in which the United Nations influences the behavior of its members.
- Advancing security-related agendas outside of the Security Council
Each of the UN’s political bodies—including the Security Council, General Assembly, and the many committees, councils, working groups, and forums—has its membership requirements, procedures, and dynamics. The Security Council is largely responsible for carrying out the conventional peace and security agenda, initially geared at ensuring stability between sovereign nations (Mingst et al., 2018). Since the conclusion of the Cold War, however, the scope of what constitutes international peace and security has grown, and the Security Council is no longer alone in addressing these concerns. There are other venues where longer-term and normative policy is developed, but the Security Council, as stated by the UN Charter, retains the only authority to order military action and pass binding decisions.
The ongoing impasse in Syria and the subsequent dispute among NATO member states over the alliance’s interpretation of the mandate from the Security Council may be seen as a departure from this course. The 1990s’ successful campaigns against anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs, and the 2010 Arms Trade Treaty are further instances of security-related agendas being pursued outside the Security Council. Even though some of the veto-holding members of the Security Council are or were among the world’s most prolific makers and users of such weapons, conventions outlawing anti-personnel landmines, the arms trade, and cluster bombs were all enacted. Policymakers were heavily influenced by the unfavorable press surrounding the campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs. The campaign was primarily credited to the work of civil society organizations, which reflected the changing global situation.
While the five permanent members of the UN Security Council do have substantial sway on matters of international peace and security, there are other, less contentious arenas in which to shape policy. In ‘softer’ but increasingly important sectors like energy, the environment, fragile states, and organized crime. Smaller nations have substantially stronger opportunities to establish a plan and pursue policy goals, including in the conventional intergovernmental organizations of the UN.
The membership of the Security Council and military power indeed have lasting implications for international security, but other factors may also be taken into account. The softer, multilaterally reliant concerns may benefit much from perceived impartiality, policy leadership, money, strategic secondments, and intellectual investments (Mingst et al., 2018). These are often fields where smaller governments with less clear, e.g., geopolitical interests, may compete well with larger ones. Liechtenstein’s successful effort to alter the Rome Statute to add an article on the crime of aggression is an excellent illustration of how a tiny state — or microstate — may advance an agenda in such a setting. When Liechtenstein was in charge of the Assembly of States Parties, it could utilize that position to raise awareness of its project.
- Influencing institutional structures and policy processes outside of the hard security arena
The United Nations usually works with a long-term plan in mind. Co-facilitating a meeting or contributing to a policy formulation process are examples of activities where the outcomes of one’s contributions are not always readily apparent. It is a long haul involving building trust, resources, expertise, and connections little by little. However, if time and energy are focused on strategically chosen areas, a solid foundation may be laid to allow for more participation as processes accelerate. This will allow a subordinate actor to exert as much influence as possible.
The co-facilitation of discussions for the result document of the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law, the most considerable high-level thematic debate in the framework of the 2012 General Assembly, was one such procedure to which Denmark committed resources. The second co-chair was Mexico, forming a strong alliance with a nation with a high degree of perceived impartiality and a high reputation among non-Western countries as a country that has experienced considerable socioeconomic development while still battling extensive crime. The United Nations has lately focused on advancing the Rule of Law agenda. The Danish and Mexican co-chairs found a vibrant partner in the then-newly appointed Deputy Secretary-General, who was developing his profile and agenda for his first term (Smidt et al., 2020). Co-chairing the high-level summit gave Denmark a rare chance to pursue the contentious rule of law agenda via a powerful and historically defined “neutral” coalition. Denmark has long recognized the importance of the Rule of Law as a foundation for open, democratic, and well-governed governments. As such, the country views the plan as essential for progress.
The post-2015 agenda is another example that is still being formulated. New global goals to replace the Millenium Development Goals after 2015 are still in the early stages of formulation, but Denmark and several other countries have actively sought to contribute to the process, including through global consultations that took place over the winter and spring of 2012-2013. With this in mind, Denmark generously funded the MDG task force at UNDP that organized the consultations and hosted a theme discussion on “inequalities,” one of the primary emphasis areas of the post-2015 agenda. With UN-Women, UNICEF, and Ghana as co-organizers, Denmark was able to build on existing partnerships with reputable organizations.
The UN’s policymaking, priority-setting, and operational strategies have historically been debated along regional or ideological lines. For example, discussions between developed and developing nations, Northern and Southern nations, or proponents of human rights and skeptics of international intervention are common examples. These differences have merged and shifted from one topic to the next in recent years. Among these tenets is the idea of binding compacts between donor nations and development partners, even in historically difficult areas like political inclusion and human rights.
These communities have historically voiced strong opposition to the conditionality inherent in the idea of compacts. The G7+ Group has, however, broken with this conventional wisdom and instead adopted the view that development in conflict and fragile environments is essentially political and requires overt government commitments. To counter the proposed policies, the G7+ nations have high expectations of donors, asking them to commit to greater use of country systems and a closer alignment of assistance and intervention with national goals (Gowlland-Debbas, 2021). Donors, who have historically sought to impose policy via funding conditions and other forms of political pressure, have applauded the newfound willingness to engage in critical discourse. Denmark has taken up the co-chairmanship of the so-called International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and State building to capitalize on the prospects presented by the re-emergence of political space. Donors from all around the world, both large and small, meet with the G7+ nations here.
- Influencing high-level policy processes and decision-making through strategic alliances
Each of the examples above represents a unique policy domain, political setting, procedure, and outcome. However, there are a few shared features that stand out. Policymaking never occurs in a void but rather in a context of competing interests, competing values, and competing red lines at every level of government. When working in a multinational setting, policymakers and negotiators are afforded a degree of leeway regarding the flexibility of the mandates expected of them by headquarters in capitals. However, most negotiators will be constrained by various goals regardless of the local political framework.
While certain negotiators’ input is undoubtedly more influential than that of others, all negotiators must consider not just the domestically stated mission but also how other nations evaluate negotiation outcomes. Similar-minded nations’ perspectives matter much, but so do those of countries with different values. It is a waste of political capital to alienate a nation by insisting on negotiating outcomes that violate its red lines. When the opportunity costs of a compromise are too high, negotiators may be inclined to make such concessions. In addition, some nations have made it a policy of their negotiations to declare clearly defined “red lines” that might prohibit concessions or at least make things more difficult during talks.
- Influencing institutional priorities and operational practices of the UN Funds, Agencies, and Programs
The decision-making, agenda formulation, prioritization, and institutional development of UN funding, agencies, and programs at the HQ level is another important area for gaining influence. Countries that have made significant financial investments in these organizations have a vested interest in their operations and may have significant influence over their decisions because of their financial contributions. This makes it a critical problem of foreign policy to have the clout to influence the agendas and directives of these groups. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has worked in post-conflict and fragile nations for decades. However, it has only recently developed specific strategies for engaging in these situations and constructed a structure reflecting the difficulties inherent in doing so.
It is hard to pinpoint what is changed, but it is clear that post-conflict and dangerous circumstances have received much more attention from donors, NGOs, and government initiatives. Denmark has sought to pull an appetite for reform by creating an agenda and providing an evidence-based argument for change rather than driving these agendas via the Executive Boards, which for various reasons, are not necessarily optimal for pushing for institutional change. This method is adopted because of the necessity of bolstering the system’s benefits with base funding while also pulling and pushing it in the right direction with designated contributions to particular programs that are both Danish priority areas and following the mandates and strategic plans of the respective organizations.
- Influencing institutional structures, priorities, and operational practices
Comprehensive research on the General Assembly’s (GA) authority as a standard-setting body has been completed. These organizations, funds, and programs’ governing bodies have similar difficulties regarding representation as the General Assembly (AFPs). Each AFP has its governance structure, but they all have a common goal of finding a middle ground between the nations that pay the bills (donors), the countries that receive aid, and those that do not fit into either category. There is usually a complicated series of statutory and informal norms, including geographical representation, size, linguistic heritage, past membership, and participation in other groups that underlie the selection of the governing bodies and their chairmanships (Vreeland et al., 2014). Taking the reins as chairman of any of the funds, agencies, or programs needs a new set of relationships to be forged among the other board members.
Conclusion
The research asserts that the United Nations largely influences the behavior of its members by setting up policies and procedures to govern almost every aspect of peacekeeping in the world. Due to a preoccupation with hard security, the importance of minor states in the multilateral system is often overlooked. Even relatively tiny nations may wield excessive power in the existing international system relative to their population sizes. Because no nation-state has the “capacity” to solve global concerns single-handedly, the authority has devolved and is now shared by those who can encourage a spirit of collaboration and persuade others that resolving specific problems is a win-win endeavor. Historically, less powerful nations have depended on international organizations founded on rules, formed alliances, and negotiated and compromised their way to greater influence.
Moreover, because of their colonial past and big power ambitions, they are typically seen as credible mediators, while the primary players lack such credibility. Power in international politics is now more about soft than strong influence. Therefore, tiny nations may capitalize on their comparative advantage and aggressively exploit their newfound power via participation in multilateral cooperation.
The growth in the number of significant international entities does not alter the reality that the globe remains mostly unipolar in terms of military might. Military might is not always the most effective asset when negotiating the current complicated landscape of international power relations. Due to rising global interconnectedness and a growing number of global difficulties without military solutions, the concept of power has shifted, and power itself is highly distributed among stakeholders of particular global agenda concerns. Thus, many developing global challenges are addressed in a world that seems to be becoming more multi- or non-polar.
Global crises and difficulties, including climate change, terrorism, green energy, state formation in fragile environments, and transnational crime, have bolstered multi-polarity and “the fragmentation of authority” in international politics. To meet our day’s problems, seasoned players and fresh faces are trying to establish their footing. Since these problems are on a global scale, they need global responses. Therefore, states of all sizes, political structures, and geographical contexts are finding that the alternatives of non-involvement and non-action are more unattractive or unworkable.
As a result of this shift, multilateralism on the international stage has become necessary. We can now identify a considerably more diverse set of stakeholders with genuine influence over international policy. In order to maintain any semblance of influence in international bodies, it is clear that the Western world must give up part of its traditional hegemony and instead become more proactive and strategic in its multilateral efforts. In the same breath, up-and-coming players, both internal and external, need to grow accustomed to having a voice and a vote, and they must learn to accept and even welcome the weight of their impact.
Over the last quarter century, there has been a dramatic shift in the global power balance. Until now, results have been inconsistent. Conversations have been marred by mutual distrust and misunderstanding, from the climate change talks over Iran’s nuclear program to the involvement with fragile nations. Normatively speaking, some new players have linked up with nations that have historically battled against the progressive agenda on matters like sexual and reproductive health and women’s rights, putting these accomplishments under growing threat.
Bibliography
Harbert, J. R. The behavior of the mini-states in the United Nations, 1971–1972. International Organization 30, no. 1 (1976), 109–127.
CIA. The World Factbook. Www.cia.gov; CIA. (2021, March 11). https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/
Burmester, Nicolas, and Michael Jankowski. One voice or a different choice? Vote defection of European Union member states in the United Nations General Assembly. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20, no. 3 (2018), 652-673.
Hurd, Ian. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Hanson, M. H., Glăveanu, V. P. Case studies’ importance, and the evolving systems. Research methods on creativity handbook (2020) (pp. 195–208).
Gowlland-Debbas, V. (2021). United Nations Sanctions and international law. Brill.
Mingst, Karen A., Margaret P. Karns, and Alynna J. Lyon. The United Nations in the 21st Century. 2018.
Murphy, Craig N. The United Nations Development Programme: A Better Way? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. Qualitative research methods (2020).
Smidt, H. M. United Nations peacekeeping locally: enabling conflict resolution, reducing communal violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, (2020). 64(2-3), 344-372.
Vreeland, James R., and Axel Dreher. The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
write