J.N. Kiarie MA-security Studies- (joekiarie@mac.

com)

A False Alarm; An Exaggeration of The Demise of the United Nations.

A Critical Review

Michael J. Glennon, Why the Security Council Failed, Foreign Affairs.

New York: May/Jun 2003. Vol. 82, No. 3

Glennon analysis on the relationship between International law, power dominance,

and multilateralism, provides a critical view of the United States (U.S.) invasion of

Iraq. According to Glennon the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. greatly undermined the

functioning of the entire United Nation (UN) as an institution. To this point, Glennon

is on spot, but for him to dismiss the entire institution on the basis of the disagreement

over Iraq, and insinuate that the Security Council has become dysfunctional or

irrelevant, is to greatly distort the reality by viewing it through the prism of just one

issue.

Glennon article nevertheless offers an interesting and engaging reading regarding the

trio issues of international law, power and organisation (UN). Unfortunately, Glennon

only offers a singular perspective of the functioning of the United Nation Security

Council and indeed the UN as a whole. But Glennon is not alone in making such

grand assertions. Such views have been expressed elsewhere. Analyzing International

law and political dominance, Krisch makes the assertion that the two are almost

irreconcilable. (Krisch, 2005, p.371) Schmitt on the same note, points out that,

“powerful states consider International law as overly constraining, and turn to politics

instead” (Schmitt cited in Krisch 2005, p.135). Chomsky is also of the same opinion,

1
J.N. Kiarie MA-security Studies- (joekiarie@mac.com)

he argues that the U.S. acts as a rogue Hegemon, that seeks to lead through might.

(Chomsky 2000)

In reference to the invasion of Iraq by the U.S., Glennon assumes that the main

function of the UNSC is to sanction the use of military force by a member state when

defending its national security interests. It is also in using this single and what appears

an isolated case that Glennon makes his strong case of the demise of the UNSC. In his

view, Glennon observes that the main objective of the UNSC (to subject the use of

force to the rule of law) had failed. He sees the whole scenario as a dramatic rupture

of the UNSC. But according to Luck this dramatic rapture did not spell the death of

the SC, but the illusion that it is was meant to function like a court. (Luck 2003)

To suggest that the organization has not only become irrelevant but is also dead, is to

overlook the independence of the SC. The SC refusal to rubber stamp the U.S.

urgency to invade Iraq is a clear pointer to its autonomy. Glennon seems to expect the

UN to succeed or at least to agree with the U.S. all the time. The fact that the council

did not ultimately agree, however, strengthens, rather than dilutes its success. The

council's refusal to serve as a rubber stamp for U.S. will give any future support it

lends to the U.S. greater credibility.

When an individual violates the domestic law, it does not translate to the demise of

the rule of law or the collapse of the entire judicial institution, but according to

Glennon, this is exactly what happens when an individual state acts in defiance of the

UN; violation of one of its principles means its downfall. The National Security

Strategy of the U.S. stated that, "no nation can build a safer, better world alone."

(Bush 2002) This document underpins the U.S. commitment to multilateralism. The

2
J.N. Kiarie MA-security Studies- (joekiarie@mac.com)

adoption of resolution 1483, granted the UN a significant role in postwar Iraq. The

unanimous adoption reflects the relevance and the esteem at which the U.S. and the

world at large hold the UN. Former Secretary-General Koffi Annan view of the UN

underpins this notion; he observed that there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy

that the UN provides. But it is probably the words of Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN's

second secretary-general that perhaps best capture the role of the UN, he argues that

“the UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell” (Quoted

in Shashi 2003)

Reaching his overly dramatic conclusion that the UNSC and indeed the UN as a

whole is dead, Glennon makes two fallacious assumptions. First he assumes a

maximalist view on the role of global power. Second on international rule of law, he

conforms to an absolutist legal standard. According to Luck this is a false

dichotomous view of power and rule of law. In response to Glennon assumptions,

Anne-Marie slaughter argues that the UN is only a legal framework for political

bargaining and not a legalist institution in opposition to geographical forces as

Glennon implies. She further argues that the UNSC was largely created to prevent war

between the major powers, an objective the institution has achieved quite well.

(Slaughter 2003)

Glennon first assumption that the U.S. is becoming a hyper power bent on assuming a

hegemonic status via any means is a bit of an exaggeration. A positive relationship

between power, international law and multilateralism do exist. Most of the times

international law and organizations have been aided by hegemonic states. Frank

argues that, “International law does not pull powerful states towards compliance

3
J.N. Kiarie MA-security Studies- (joekiarie@mac.com)

contrary to their interests.” (Frank 2006, p. 91) even a powerful state like the U.S.,

most of the times, uses the Law to legitimize its action or allow itself to be restrained

by the very same law. Its not in all cases that the U.S. flexes its hard power muscles;

at times it uses its soft power in its relation with other states. As Shashi argues,

multilateralism is not only a means but also an end. Most states act both unilaterally

and multilaterally at times: the former in defense of their national security or in their

immediate backyard, the latter in pursuit of global causes. (Shashi 2003)

Glennon also seem to ignore the progress the UN has made since its inception, but he

is quick to criticize it even when criticism is uncalled for. With the invasion of

Kosovo, the U.S. did not even bother to seek NATO approval leave alone inform it

but in Iraq there was at least an attempt to invoke both legal and power symbolism,

seeking to strike a balance between power and rule of law, something Glennon

appears to easily forget or ignore all together.

4
J.N. Kiarie MA-security Studies- (joekiarie@mac.com)

References

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Staying Alive, The Rumors of the UN’s Death Have Been

Exaggerated: Misreading the Record, Foreign Affairs Vol.82 No.4, 2003.

George W. Bush, Bush's National Security Strategy, Common Dreams News Center,

September 20, 2002. Available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-

05.htm accessed on 15th January 2008

Chomsky, N., 2000. Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, Pluto Press.

Edward C. Luck, Staying Alive, The Rumors of the UN’s Death Have Been

Exaggerated: The End of an Illusion, Foreign Affairs Vol.82 No.4, 2003.

Frank, M., T., 2006. The power of legitimacy and the legitimacy of power:
International law in an image of power disequilibrium, The American journal of
International law, Vol. 100:88, pp88-106

Ian Hard, The Rumors of the UN’s Death Have Been Exaggerated: Too Legit to Quit,

Foreign Affairs Vol.82 No.4, 2003.

Krisch, N., 2005. International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the
Shaping of the International Legal Order, The European Journal of International Law,
Vol. 16 No. 3, 369–408 Available at
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/369 accessed on 27 December
2007

Tharoor, Shashi. 2003. "Why America Still Needs the United Nations." Foreign
Affairs 82, no. 5: 67-80. Available at
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=10580759&site=e
host-live accessed on January 14, 2008