Amber Rana
For years, the United Nations has been at the center of debates on its future: what about reform? Possible changes have mostly concerned ways to improve the representativeness of the current system, such as increasing the size of the Security Council or changing the voting process.
These discussions continue to be relevant, but they ignore a more basic fact. The biggest problem with the United Nations today is neither it’s power imbalance, nor is it its constitution; it’s the fact that it was created for a world that no longer exists. The 21st century requires institutional change, and institutional re-invention.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to stop another World War through collective security and international diplomacy between the states. It was designed to mirror the geopolitical reality of the time, after World War II when the primary danger to international peace was war between sovereign nation-states. Eight decades on, the face of insecurity is vastly different. Cyberattacks can disrupt critical infrastructure without being able to cross any borders. AI is changing the way decisions are made in the military at a rapid pace, outpacing the efforts of international law.
Humanitarian crises are worsening and democratic institutions are being weakened by misinformation at the same time as climate change is intensifying. Meanwhile, humanitarian crises are worsening and democratic institutions are being weakened by misinformation without a single shot being fired. But the world’s leading multilateral institution is stuck in a very different time in terms of governance mechanisms.
This disparity has been growing apparent. The United Nations has been have been unable to act quickly enough in the face of technology-based threats without territorial boundaries. Despite its important implications for international peace and security, it has only limited powers regarding AI governance, not consolidated strategies on Cybersecurity and no all-encompassing governance framework for tackling information warfare.
Geopolitical rivalries among the major powers have meanwhile often bogged down decision-making in the Security Council, making consensus more difficult than ever when it is most crucial. It is not institutional failure, but institutional obsolescence in the important aspects of global governance.
The essential values of the UN are not lost when reinvented. Instead, it is necessary to broaden what is considered “international security.” In addition to peacekeeping and conflict mediation, it should be a hub for mobilizing global response to new risks.
This covers the creation of more robust governance frameworks for AI, the creation of internationally agreed norms for cyberspace, the bolstering of early warning systems for climate-related security threats and the strengthening of cooperation for combating transnational disinformation campaigns. Digital resilience and the governance of technology will be as much a key determinant of future peace as will military deterrence.
Also, rethinking the functioning of the United Nations is important. Legitimacy is still dependent on consensus among almost two hundred member states, but not all emerging problems can be addressed through the lengthy process of negotiation. States, scientific advisory groups, technology specialists and regional groups should be systematically more included in decision making through flexible coalitions.
The ability of the institution to contribute to multilateralism in the future will not only be determined by who is sitting at the table, but by whether it has the necessary expertise to be able to respond to the new threats that are emerging in the world.
But, critics can suggest that, competing national interests make meaningful reinvention politically unrealistic. That’s a good reason for concern. But, experience has shown that international institutions need to change when they can no longer cope with new realities.
The establishment of the United Nations itself was an acknowledgment that earlier international bodies were not adequate to ensure peace amongst the nations of the world. Today’s evolving security environment calls for a comparable mindset to re-think instead of just rework the current frameworks.
Representativeness of the institutional procedures in the future of global governance is not the only question. There are more than just the questions about adding to the permanent membership of the Security Council or the making of the procedures more representative. Those reforms are important, but they’re a response to yesterday’s issues not tomorrow’s.
To be relevant in the era of AI, cyber warfare, climate change and technology revolution, the United Nations needs to go beyond incremental change and embrace real reinvention. The real question is that, should the institution change? It’s whether it can rapidly adapt itself to be essential in a world for which it was never meant to rule.
Amber Rana is a Public Administration student at National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad with research experience at Pakistan’s Ministry of Planning, Development & Special Initiatives, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and other public policy organizations. Her research interests include national security, governance, public policy, strategic affairs and emerging challenges at the intersection of technology, climate and international relations.
