Fyodor Lukyanov Identifies the Most Significant Current Challenge for the UN
The institution is a byproduct of Western political culture, and this poses a significant issue. Read the full article on RT.com.
TroibNews 
The institution is a product of Western political culture and that’s its problem
The annual United Nations General Assembly, which brings together leaders and high-ranking officials from around the world, has commenced in New York. This year, the General Debate is preceded by the Future Summit, an initiative spearheaded by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary next year, its governing bodies aim to draft proposals addressing how it should operate in a shifting global landscape.
Expectations are not particularly high. The UN is not a world government with authority to make and enforce decisions; instead, it serves as a barometer of international relations. This means it operates effectively during periods when global affairs are orderly, typically under an established hierarchy. Currently, such a hierarchy does not exist. Furthermore, the prevailing attitude among nations could be described as non-aggressively rebellious, with increasing resistance to following directives despite no appetite for a “world revolution.”
In this climate, the documents set for adoption—the Compact for the Future, the accompanying Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations—are essentially frameworks. Their adoption is uncertain, as participants are acutely sensitive to language and wary of perceived attempts to undermine particular countries or groups. The ability to reach consensus on these texts will reflect the current global dynamics but is unlikely to significantly alter them. Nevertheless, the future of international institutions will continue to be a central topic, highlighting the transformation of the global system.
The concerns of the UN's leadership regarding its current structure are valid. The organization is a remnant of a past era, one that is reflected in the Security Council’s composition, which still mirrors the outcome of a war from the early 20th century. The essential question is whether the global system—governed by institutions agreed upon by dominant players—remains intact.
A primary issue is identifying who these dominant players are today. The current “five” permanent members of the Security Council have struggled to agree on the council's expansion, which has been a notable barrier to reform. While there are valid reasons for this, another question arises: are the potential candidates for the new seats prepared to reach consensus on who among them should join the esteemed council? There appear to be numerous criteria for selection, with varying preferences that often conflict.
Furthermore, what authorities should these reformed institutions wield? Traditionally, they emphasize the supremacy of international law, with the UN acting as the custodian of norms established in its Charter. However, practical application shows that all law derives from the balance of power, particularly the capacity to shape legal interpretations. The UN Charter allows considerable leeway for interpretation, particularly regarding complex issues like territorial integrity and the right to self-determination. In today’s competitive landscape, such ambiguities and differing interpretations can lead to direct conflicts, often resolved not through legal means but through force.
Another key consideration is that current international law emerges from Western political culture and thought. This is neither inherently positive nor negative, but simply a historical reality. The focus here is not on the so-called “rules-based order,” which has often served American interests, but rather on legal norms that have broad recognition. Traditionally dominated by Western perspectives, these norms are now facing challenges that gradually erode this dominance—a natural shift rather than a result of specific actions by any one party.
The continuation of this shift signifies an irreversible move toward greater cultural and political diversity globally. This change also extends to legal frameworks, which vary widely and are influenced by distinct traditions. In a diverse world, international norms should ideally be oriented toward harmonizing these varied approaches rather than adhering to a singular standard.
A multipolar world presents significant challenges for regulation, yet this does not imply abandoning the UN. The complexity of global dynamics does not negate the interconnectedness of nations. This interconnectedness influences competition and renders certain agreements obligatory, especially concerning issues where options for evasion are limited, and there are numerous such issues.
Ultimately, a renewed UN reform, when it eventually occurs, should begin by acknowledging that the most pressing question is not “who leads,” but rather how to facilitate interactions among the many non-permanent members—those who are not part of the historical five. These nations are increasingly asserting themselves on the global stage, voicing their own demands. The nature of these demands reflects the very global challenges that the UN is designed to address.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
The annual United Nations General Assembly, which brings together leaders and high-ranking officials from around the world, has commenced in New York. This year, the General Debate is preceded by the Future Summit, an initiative spearheaded by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary next year, its governing bodies aim to draft proposals addressing how it should operate in a shifting global landscape.
Expectations are not particularly high. The UN is not a world government with authority to make and enforce decisions; instead, it serves as a barometer of international relations. This means it operates effectively during periods when global affairs are orderly, typically under an established hierarchy. Currently, such a hierarchy does not exist. Furthermore, the prevailing attitude among nations could be described as non-aggressively rebellious, with increasing resistance to following directives despite no appetite for a “world revolution.”
In this climate, the documents set for adoption—the Compact for the Future, the accompanying Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations—are essentially frameworks. Their adoption is uncertain, as participants are acutely sensitive to language and wary of perceived attempts to undermine particular countries or groups. The ability to reach consensus on these texts will reflect the current global dynamics but is unlikely to significantly alter them. Nevertheless, the future of international institutions will continue to be a central topic, highlighting the transformation of the global system.
The concerns of the UN's leadership regarding its current structure are valid. The organization is a remnant of a past era, one that is reflected in the Security Council’s composition, which still mirrors the outcome of a war from the early 20th century. The essential question is whether the global system—governed by institutions agreed upon by dominant players—remains intact.
A primary issue is identifying who these dominant players are today. The current “five” permanent members of the Security Council have struggled to agree on the council's expansion, which has been a notable barrier to reform. While there are valid reasons for this, another question arises: are the potential candidates for the new seats prepared to reach consensus on who among them should join the esteemed council? There appear to be numerous criteria for selection, with varying preferences that often conflict.
Furthermore, what authorities should these reformed institutions wield? Traditionally, they emphasize the supremacy of international law, with the UN acting as the custodian of norms established in its Charter. However, practical application shows that all law derives from the balance of power, particularly the capacity to shape legal interpretations. The UN Charter allows considerable leeway for interpretation, particularly regarding complex issues like territorial integrity and the right to self-determination. In today’s competitive landscape, such ambiguities and differing interpretations can lead to direct conflicts, often resolved not through legal means but through force.
Another key consideration is that current international law emerges from Western political culture and thought. This is neither inherently positive nor negative, but simply a historical reality. The focus here is not on the so-called “rules-based order,” which has often served American interests, but rather on legal norms that have broad recognition. Traditionally dominated by Western perspectives, these norms are now facing challenges that gradually erode this dominance—a natural shift rather than a result of specific actions by any one party.
The continuation of this shift signifies an irreversible move toward greater cultural and political diversity globally. This change also extends to legal frameworks, which vary widely and are influenced by distinct traditions. In a diverse world, international norms should ideally be oriented toward harmonizing these varied approaches rather than adhering to a singular standard.
A multipolar world presents significant challenges for regulation, yet this does not imply abandoning the UN. The complexity of global dynamics does not negate the interconnectedness of nations. This interconnectedness influences competition and renders certain agreements obligatory, especially concerning issues where options for evasion are limited, and there are numerous such issues.
Ultimately, a renewed UN reform, when it eventually occurs, should begin by acknowledging that the most pressing question is not “who leads,” but rather how to facilitate interactions among the many non-permanent members—those who are not part of the historical five. These nations are increasingly asserting themselves on the global stage, voicing their own demands. The nature of these demands reflects the very global challenges that the UN is designed to address.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
