Abstract

In this article, we explore numerous factors impacting decision making within large world organisations (such as the United Nations). Multiple subtopics are included in order to properly showcase the extent to which these factors influence large, internationally-led organisations. Examples of current, ongoing situations in the spheres of economics and politics are described in order to further the readers’ understanding of said factors. Our goal for this article is to increase readers’ knowledge regarding the workings of world-leading organisations.

1. Introduction

The word “pressure” will be used multiple times in this article.”Pressure”, in a society built by connected yet frequently unequal interactions, questions the reliability of influence and the ethics of using power to accomplish desired outcomes. It can be defined as the intentional use of power by governments, organisations, or other entities to influence the choices, actions, or policies of others, frequently utilising financial advantages and political stability. Pressure may also take the form of economic sanctions, diplomatic discussions, or moral appeals. Although pressure might have appealing or positive results in certain scenarios, it reflects a tension between autonomy and force.

Global organisations are defined as international alliances which involve many countries and often espouse collaborative goals (Mingst, 2024). For example, the United Nations is a world organisation whose overall goal is to maintain world peace. Another example is the World Trade Organisation which regulates and facilitates international trade. These undoubtedly serve many specific functions which impact both international relations and everyday life between citizens; they are fundamentally designed to facilitate cooperation between nations, promote peace, and foster economic development. Alongside the function of the larger international organisation, the member states play a pivotal role both through their direct participation and the influence they exert on institutional frameworks and global governance. 

Countries, particularly powerful ones, significantly impact the decision-making processes, agenda setting, and overall functioning of international organisations. For instance, in the UN Security Council, the five permanent members (P5) – the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia – hold veto power, enabling them to block any substantive resolution, regardless of global consensus (Voeten, 2005). This structure reveals how dominant countries can steer the course of international politics and conflict resolution within such bodies. Similarly, in financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), wealthier nations often have greater voting power based on their financial contributions, allowing them to influence decisions regarding economic policies and loans to developing countries (Thacker, 1999). This relationship highlights how economic influence translates into governance power within international bodies.

Conversely, international organisations exert influence on the policies and actions of their member states. Countries adhering to treaties and agreements facilitated by these organisations are often subject to regulatory frameworks designed to maintain international peace, human rights, and trade standards. For example, WTO membership requires countries to follow trade rules that promote open markets and reduce protectionism, which in turn impacts domestic economic policies (Goldstein, 1998). This interdependence is crucial in addressing global issues, such as climate change, international security, and economic development.

2. Social Factors

The relationship between a government and its people is vital for sustaining trust and ensuring the wellbeing of society. Misalignment can lead to distrust and resentment within the population, ultimately affecting the decision-making process. An example of this misalignment was the case of Britain’s intervention in Iraq; the people of the UK were not in favour of ongoing fighting and loss here, and instead, the government’s wishes were prioritised. The United States’ position on the Israel-Palestine conflict also demonstrates this prioritisation; Israel will not receive sanctions in the foreseeable future, as the USA holds veto power and uses it to protect Israel’s actions in this ongoing dispute (O’Dell, 2023). The credibility and fairness of veto power will be explained and challenged thoroughly later in this article. 

The two situations stated above call into question just how much power the UN actually holds when faced by a veto-holding country. Is the UN simply one of America’s ideological institutions? First and foremost, the UN is a powerful organisation, yet their power is extremely limited when faced with difficulty from veto-holding countries (Weiss, 2017). Additionally, the organisations partnered with the UN are not always respected by the P5 (the five permanent members of the UN security council):

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a prime example. It is reputed to undermine the work of the World Bank, drawing developing countries away from the WB and potentially being the root of a shift in power between the East and the West (Qian, Vreeland, Zhao, 2023). Therefore, the credibility of the World Bank and similar institutions are threatened as a whole.

Despite political disagreements, substantial goals are consistently accomplished by UN specialised agencies. Historically, these organisations are funded and aided without an issue if they do not clash with hard power – that is to say the wishes of members of the P5. To begin, each agency works separately to advance their independent goals and contributions to the world. The given examples noted have many different foci:

• Cultural and Economic preservation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organisation (UNESCO), one of the UN’s best known agencies, emphasises the preservation of cultural heritage, whereas the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) works more within the world of sustainable development (Winters, 2017).
• Health and Humanitarian work: The World Health Organisation executes significant schemes and plans for health crises internationally – most notably vaccine schemes in both the developing and developed world. Similarly, UNICEF and the World Food Programme (WFP) address issues such as food security and child welfare (Singh, 2020). 

Ultimately, UN-specialised agencies save lives by putting the people first, and therefore form a fundamental part of the United Nations and its priority of world peace.

3. Culture and the Role of Beliefs

As belonging is critical to our survival, we are all influenced by the world in which we live. For this reason, our need to belong is a significant motivator in how we respond to situations and how we make decisions. Cultural expectations permeate every social system in our lives and unconsciously drive many of our decisions. It is vital to note the variety of factors that form cultural standards: different values and beliefs, perception of risk, social expectations, and expected roles.

3.1 The Role of Values and Beliefs in Decision Making

Personal values are defined as “broad desirable goals that motivate people’s actions and serve as guiding principles in their lives” (Schwartz, 1992). Personal values, which may include donating to charity or spending time with family, are affected by an individual’s culture, personal upbringing, and life experiences. 

Global organisations represent people from geographically diverse areas, with different backgrounds, who hold varied values and so we must question whether individual beliefs affect decision making and how that may result in certain biases. Firstly, diverse perspectives and values are inevitable, and important, as decision makers each bring different perspectives and priorities. This diversity can then lead to richer, more innovative solutions but can also create challenges in reaching a consensus. Furthermore, organisational decisions often establish global codes of ethics that attempt to reconcile these differences by creating a common set of principles. However, the interpretation and implementation of these codes can still be influenced by the personal and cultural beliefs of decision makers. 

It is evident that different cultures have varying standards of what is considered a “norm”. A practice deemed acceptable in one culture might be seen as unethical in another. This can influence decisions on issues like labour practices, environmental impact, and corporate governance. One notable example of a decision influenced by personal beliefs within the United Nations involves former United Nations secretary, General Kofi Annan, and his efforts to address the crisis in Darfur, Sudan in the early 2000s. He was highly committed to human rights and the concept of the responsibility to protect, and was therefore profoundly affected by the UN’s failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This experience clearly shaped his determination to prevent such atrocities from recurring and his beliefs and moral convictions played a significant role in his advocacy for a robust international response to the Darfur crisis as he pushed for a stronger UN intervention and was instrumental in bringing the issue to the forefront of the UN’s agenda, despite significant political challenges and resistance from member states. Overall, his advocacy led to the eventual deployment of the African Union-United Nations hybrid operation in Darfur. 

Certain cultures with high power distance accept hierarchical structures and decisions are often made by those at the top, without much consultation with lower levels. In low power distance cultures, decision making may be more democratic and involve input from various levels. In addition, regarding cultures where respect for authority is deeply ingrained, individuals may defer to the decisions of elders or rely on “traditional” gender roles. 

For example, the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, was a landmark event that sought to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment globally. However, there was conflict regarding pre-existing gender roles and religion. During this conference, and in the negotiations leading up to it, several countries, particularly from the Middle East, Africa, and certain parts of Asia, raised concerns about language related to reproductive rights, gender roles and family structures; they argued that some of the proposed measures conflicted with their religious and cultural values, particularly regarding the definition of the family and issues related to sexuality. 

For instance the term “sexual and reproductive health” was contentious. Some countries feared that it could be interpreted as endorsing abortion or promoting Western notions of sexual freedom. However, within the United Nations, countries with similar cultural and religious backgrounds often formed alliances to negotiate for language that would come to respect and represent their beliefs in the final document. For example, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation played a significant role in advocating for language that aligned with Islamic principles. 

The Beijing Platform for Action also included compromises that reflected the diverse cultural perspectives of the UN member states. Moreover, while the document affirmed women’s rights to healthcare and protection from violence, it also allowed for cultural interpretations and reservations. This clearly shows that, although  there are a variety of perspectives that stem from distinct traditions, it is possible to come to an agreement after regarding everyone’s ideas.

4. Political Factors

To recognise  the role of political pressure in decision making, it is important to note that the nations involved in world organisations subscribe to various types of governance. These governments include monarchies, republics, and parliamentary republics. Monarchies, for example, are a form of government with a monarch at the head. Their political structures can be divided into three modern types, constitutional, semi-constitutional, and absolute. Constitutional monarchy is when the monarch acts as head of state within the requirements of the constitution; they are not granted actual power. In contrast, a semi-constitutional monarchy allows the monarch or ruling royal family to retain substantial political powers. Yet, their monarchs rule the country based on a democratic constitution and cooperate with other branches of government as well as any relevant organisations. Lastly, an absolute monarch has power over the government.

Republics allow the people to directly elect representatives to government. In the modern day, republics include presidential, semi-presidential, and parliamentary governments. The presidential republic has a strong and independent chief executive who possesses extensive powers when it comes to domestic affairs and foreign policy. An example of this includes the United States, where the President acts both as  head of state and head of government. In a semi-presidential republic, the president is the head of state and has some executive powers independent of the legislature. In contrast, a parliamentary republic consists of a president acting as a figurehead while behind the scenes, the head of government has the real power and is validated as well as accountable to the parliament. 

Unlike the two systems above that mention multiple political parties competing to rule or govern their respective countries, hung parliaments have no single political party win a majority. In this political structure, known as a balanced parliament, there exists no single political party or  coalition (an alliance) with a majority of legislators in a parliament. In this system, a country’s head of state and head of government can choose between benign executive or ceremonial, but political power will constitutionally be linked to a single political movement. 

The last form of government is a provisional government formed as a transitional government. This is an emergency governmental body created to manage political transition in the case of a government collapsing, or when a new state is created. These often evolve into a full constitutionalised system. However, in some cases, they hold power for longer than expected (Truman Du 2023). 

Various governance systems contribute to four main foreign policies. Firstly, imperialism: the practice of expanding power through either territorial annexation or by gaining political and economic control of areas external to the country. The second form is diplomacy: the practice of negotiating with other nations peacefully. The modern use of the term correlates with any official acts of foreign ministries other than war, resulting in the negotiation of treaties, the making of official declarations, and presenting a government’s views on an issue. The third form is neutrality and isolationism: isolationism often refers to opposing any commitments to other countries including treaties and trade agreements where they are wholly self-reliant. In a global economy, many states adopt the concept of neutrality where they intend to remain neutral during the event of an armed conflict while reserving the right to act if attacked. The final policy is collective security: groups of countries work together as allies to preserve mutual peace and security.

The League of Nations and the United Nations outlined aspirations for security in their Covenant and Charter, yet neither has reliably prevented conflict. Political factors heavily shape decision making within world organisations, as diverse national interests, power dynamics, and leadership styles come into play. These factors influence the agenda, policies, and effectiveness of international organisations. The following points explore how political factors impact these decisions.

4.1 Leadership Styles and Country Relations with Citizens

Different leadership styles within countries affect approaches to decision-making in international organisations. For example, authoritarian regimes may prioritise state sovereignty and resist international interventions in domestic affairs, leading to opposition to human rights conventions or global governance efforts that advocate transparency. These leaders often prioritise national security and economic stability, which may conflict with the values promoted by democratic countries seeking to uphold freedom of speech and human rights on the international stage.

Likewise, democratic leaders are generally more inclined to engage in multilateral cooperation and support rules-based governance, reflecting their internal governance structures that encourage transparency and citizen participation. The relationship between a country’s leadership and its citizens influences whether it adopts global norms, making international consensus more difficult to achieve when leadership ideologies diverge. This consequently influences a wide range of social factors (Moravcsik, 2000).

4.2 Nuclear Power Distribution and the Dominance of the United States

The distribution of nuclear power is a significant factor in the political decision-making process within world organisations, particularly in the realm of global security. The dominance of nuclear-armed countries, particularly the United States, plays a crucial role in shaping the policies and actions of international organisations like the UN and NATO.

The United States and Russia wield disproportionate influence within the United Nations, often using military power and economic leverage to shape international security policies. The US has frequently led initiatives that impact global non-proliferation treaties and sanctions against countries like North Korea and Iran (Paul, 2000). This dominance creates an imbalance in decision making, where smaller states without nuclear capabilities may feel pressured to align with the positions of nuclear powers, even when it may not align with their own national interests.

4.3 United Nations Security Council (UNSC)

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is perhaps the most visible example of how political power dynamics affect decision making within international organisations. The UNSC is composed of 15 members, five of which are permanent members with veto power: the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia (P5). This structure is a manifestation of the post-World War II global order, reflecting the geopolitical realities of that time.

The veto power held by the P5 creates a political imbalance; any one of these countries can block substantive action even when there is broad international consensus. For example, Russia and China have frequently vetoed resolutions regarding the Syrian Civil War, preventing meaningful intervention despite widespread calls for action (Weiss, 2003).

4.4 National Interests and Regional Alliances

Countries often prioritise their national interests and form regional alliances that influence their positions within world organisations. For example, members of the European Union often coordinate their policies within international bodies to present a united front on issues like climate change, trade, and migration (Keohane & Nye, 2001). Similarly, alliances such as NATO or the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) allow member states to strengthen their bargaining power and protect their interests within global governance structures. Regional alliances can both aid and hinder decision-making. On one hand, they can help smaller states amplify their voices on the international stage. On the other hand, they can exacerbate divisions, especially when regional interests clash with broader international goals. 

Countries with greater military, economic, or diplomatic power often have outsized influence, allowing them to steer international policies to align with their national interests. At the same time, smaller or developing nations must navigate these power dynamics, often finding themselves at a disadvantage in shaping the international agenda.

5. Economic Factors

Within international institutions, economic forces play a prominent role in political decision making. Financial crises, budgetary restraints, and trade imbalances frequently affect policy decisions as institutions such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organisation (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) navigate global economic issues. This dynamic may ultimately affect the efficacy and course of international cooperation and governance initiatives by creating tensions between upholding economic order and resolving social and ethical issues.

When it comes to making decisions in international organisations like the World Bank, International Criminal Court (ICC), United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and International Monetary Fund (IMF), developing nations usually have a major disadvantage. Again, the P5 often place national interests above global equity, halting or postponing much-needed aid and peacekeeping operations to developing countries or imposing sanctions, potentially escalating economic crises or regional conflicts.

Furthermore, developing countries are more vulnerable to pressure and economic exploitation by global financial organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF. These organisations, which are dominated by developed countries with greater financial and voting power, frequently place strict requirements on loans and other financial aid. These terms, also referred to as Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), usually impose trade policy reform, the privatisation of state-owned businesses, and the implementation of austerity measures on borrowing nations. Even while these policies are meant to stabilise economies and spur progress, they frequently have detrimental social and economic effects on developing countries, such as greater poverty, decreased public spending on necessities like healthcare and education, and a loss of economic sovereignty. Developing nations’ ability to negotiate the terms of such accords is limited due to their underrepresentation and lack of power within these institutions, which may result in policies at odds with their long-term development objectives or particular requirements.

In addition, the IMF and World Bank’s economic pressure may reduce a nation’s sovereignty and capacity for independent policy making. The necessity of sustainable growth is frequently obscured by the emphasis on quick economic stabilisation. This dynamic usually results in environmental damage, unfair trade deals, and labour violations in developing nations, which may be forced into making compromises in order to get more market access and draw investment. Trade agreements such as the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) nations, for instance, have been harshly criticised for restricting developing nations’ ability to protect their emerging industries through policy while favouring European economic interests:

“‘I come from a small fishing village in Ghana. Members of my family fished for their livelihood, but fishing has become impossible since larger European fishing vessels came and fished our seas empty. The same happened with poultry. EU imports of frozen chicken wings destroyed the local market… EPAs are free trade agreements, and as such, they will bring poverty to Africa.’” (Tetteh Hormeku, 2006.)

6. The Role of ICJ and Other Tribunals

International tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) play a significant role in influencing decision making within international organisations. As judicial bodies are tasked with resolving disputes between states and providing legal advice to international organisations, these tribunals are instrumental in shaping global norms, enforcing international law, and ensuring that decisions made within international organisations adhere to legal standards. The ICJ, along with other tribunals like the International Criminal Court (ICC), exerts substantial influence on how international organisations function and the legal frameworks that guide their operations.

6.1 The Role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The ICJ, as the principal judicial organisation of the United Nations (UN), serves as a key legal mechanism for resolving disputes between states. It operates based on international treaties, conventions, and customary international law, providing rulings on legal disputes and advisory opinions that influence the actions of international organisations. The ICJ’s decisions can serve as precedents for international law, guiding future policies and resolutions within bodies like the UN, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and others. The ICJ’s rulings help clarify complex issues in international law, directly impacting decision-making processes within international organisations.

For example, in the “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua” case, the ICJ ruled against the United States for its actions in Nicaragua, affirming the principle of non-intervention in sovereign states’ affairs (ICJ Reports, 1986). This ruling set a crucial precedent for future UN resolutions, reaffirming the importance of state sovereignty and non-intervention as guiding principles of international law.

Additionally, the ICJ provides advisory opinions that influence the legal frameworks governing international organisations. For instance, the court’s advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons (1996) played a pivotal role in shaping global debates on nuclear disarmament and influenced negotiations within the UN and related bodies. While the opinion did not categorically ban nuclear weapons, it underscored the illegality of their use in most circumstances, guiding future policy decisions on arms control and disarmament.

6.2 Accountability and Enforcement of International Law

International tribunals like the ICJ influence the ways in which international organisations implement their decisions and policies. By providing a legal mechanism for resolving disputes and upholding international law, the ICJ ensures that international organisations operate within legal parameters. This accountability helps prevent arbitrary decision making by states or organisations, and reinforces the legitimacy of the international system.

6.3 Impact on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)

The ICJ’s decisions have indirect influence over the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC has the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and the ICJ’s rulings often provide legal clarity that guides the council’s actions. For instance, in cases where the UNSC is considering sanctions, interventions, or peacekeeping operations, the legal advice and judgements provided by the ICJ can shape the council’s decision-making process.

Moreover, when the UNSC faces disputes over territorial sovereignty or international treaties, the ICJ’s legal expertise ensures that resolutions are grounded in international law, thereby promoting a more rules-based approach to global governance. While the UNSC’s decisions are political, the ICJ’s influence helps frame them within a legal context, ensuring that international law remains a guiding principle.

Despite its influence, the ICJ and other international tribunals face limitations in enforcing their decisions. Compliance with ICJ rulings depends largely on the willingness of states to adhere to international law as the court lacks direct enforcement mechanisms. For instance, in the Nicaragua  v. United States case, although the ICJ ruled in Nicaragua’s favour, the US refused to comply with the court’s decision, demonstrating the limits of legal influence when political power is involved.

Additionally, the ICJ’s advisory opinions, while influential, are non-binding, which limits their direct impact on the decision-making processes of international organisations. However, even non-binding opinions can shape international legal norms, global media conversations, and influence policy discussions.

6.4 Influence of Other International Tribunals

In addition to the ICJ, other international tribunals also contribute to the decision-making processes of international organisations. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for instance, plays a key role in holding individuals accountable for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Its actions influence the broader work of international organisations like the UN, which may need to coordinate peacekeeping operations or impose sanctions in response to ICC investigations.

The ICC’s prosecution of leaders involved in international crimes creates pressure on states to comply with international human rights standards. This influences global governance as international organisations become more focused on human rights and justice as central components of international law. For example, the ICC’s investigations into war crimes in Sudan and Libya have influenced UN decisions regarding interventions, sanctions, and peacekeeping efforts in those regions.

7. Discussion of Real-Life Examples

7.1 Syrian War (UNSC)

The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, is a complex conflict that has exposed the significant influence of political factors in decision making within world organisations, particularly the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and regional bodies like the Arab League. The international community’s response to the war has been shaped by the interplay of global power dynamics, geopolitical interests, regional alliances, and the competing objectives of various states. This case study illustrates how political factors, including the veto power of permanent UNSC members, regional power struggles, and the interests of major powers like the United States and Russia, have impacted decision-making within international organisations.

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Stalemate

The UNSC’s handling of the Syrian conflict is a prime example of how political factors can paralyse international decision making. The UNSC is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, and it has the authority to pass resolutions that can impose sanctions, authorise military interventions, or establish peacekeeping missions. However, the use of veto power by the permanent members of the council has frequently stalled efforts to address the Syrian crisis.

Russian and Chinese Vetoes

Russia, a key ally of the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad, has consistently used its veto power to block resolutions aimed at holding the Assad regime accountable for alleged war crimes, implementing ceasefires, and imposing sanctions. Between 2011 and 2020, Russia vetoed over 15 UNSC resolutions related to Syria, often with the support of China. Russia’s motivations include maintaining its military and economic interests in Syria, particularly its naval base at Tartus, which is Russia’s only Mediterranean port, and supporting its long-standing ally in the Middle East to preserve influence in the region (Weiss, 2014).

In 2012, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have condemned the Syrian government and threatened sanctions for its brutal crackdown on protesters. These vetoes allowed the Assad regime to continue its military campaign against opposition forces, prolonging the conflict. The repeated use of vetoes by Russia and China illustrates how geopolitical interests and alliances can override the global community’s efforts to achieve peace, impeding the effectiveness of international organisations like the UNSC.

Western and US Political Stance

On the other hand, the United States and its Western allies have pushed for resolutions that support opposition groups, promote humanitarian assistance, and hold the Assad regime accountable for human rights violations, including the use of chemical weapons. However, the US and its allies have also faced internal political considerations, such as public opposition to military interventions following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have influenced their decision making within the UNSC and the broader international response to the Syrian conflict.

The US has been cautious about direct military intervention, instead supporting moderate opposition groups and providing humanitarian aid. The Obama administration, for example, faced intense domestic and international pressure to act after Assad’s forces were accused of using chemical weapons in 2013. However, political factors, including the desire to avoid another protracted Middle Eastern conflict, led the US to pursue diplomatic solutions rather than military action, culminating in a deal with Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile (Sanger & Gordon, 2013).

Humanitarian Aid and Political Complications

Political factors have also complicated the delivery of humanitarian aid in Syria, with world organisations such as the UN struggling to reach civilians due to geopolitical divisions. The Assad regime has consistently restricted access to aid for rebel-held areas, and efforts to establish humanitarian corridors or provide cross-border aid have been hindered by political disagreements within the UNSC.

In 2020, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have allowed the continued delivery of cross-border humanitarian aid to opposition-held areas in Syria without the Syrian government’s approval. As a result, the number of border crossings authorised for aid delivery was reduced, severely limiting the international community’s ability to provide critical assistance to millions of Syrians in need.

These political divisions have left international humanitarian efforts at the mercy of geopolitical interests. The Syrian government has used aid as a tool of war, denying access to rebel-held areas, while international organisations are forced to navigate a complex web of political constraints that limit their ability to address the humanitarian crisis effectively.

Role of Regional Organisations and Alliances

The Syrian Civil War has also highlighted the role of regional organisations and alliances in influencing decision-making within international organisations. The Arab League initially played a significant role in condemning Assad’s actions, suspending Syria’s membership in 2011 and calling for an end to the violence. However, the effectiveness of the Arab League was limited due to the differing interests of its member states.

Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, supported the Syrian opposition, providing funding and military aid to rebel groups, while other countries, such as Iran, supported the Assad regime. Iran’s involvement in the conflict, including the deployment of military forces and funding for Hezbollah fighters, was motivated by its desire to maintain a strategic ally in the region and counterbalance Saudi influence (Phillips, 2016). This regional rivalry further complicated international efforts to mediate the conflict, as world organisations like the UN were unable to reconcile the competing interests of key regional powers.

The Role of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The Syrian Civil War has also raised questions about the role of international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), in addressing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although there have been widespread reports of atrocities committed by both the Syrian government and opposition forces, including the use of chemical weapons, mass killings, and torture, Syria is not a member of the ICC, limiting the court’s jurisdiction over the conflict.

Efforts to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC have been blocked by political factors within the UNSC. In 2014, a resolution proposed by France to refer the Syrian conflict to the ICC was vetoed by Russia and China, demonstrating once again how political alliances and strategic interests can hinder accountability for war crimes and the pursuit of justice. The inability of the international community to bring perpetrators to justice has further undermined the credibility of world organisations in addressing the Syrian conflict.

The case of the Syrian Civil War demonstrates how political factors, including the use of veto power in the UNSC, regional alliances, and geopolitical interests, can significantly influence decision-making within world organisations. The deadlock in the UNSC, driven by the competing interests of major powers like Russia and the United States, has prevented meaningful international intervention and prolonged the conflict. Regional rivalries and the involvement of key actors like Iran and Saudi Arabia have further complicated efforts to mediate the conflict through international organisations. Ultimately, the Syrian Civil War illustrates the limits of international governance when political factors override the principles of global peace, security, and humanitarian aid.

7.2 Uyghur Situation in China Concerning Veto Power

China is accused of persecuting a Muslim minority (Schlein, 2024). The Uyghurs are a Turkic, predominantly Muslim minority group with twelve million inhabitants in the Xinjiang region in north-western China. This is officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. China has been investigated in recent years as numerous reports regarding human rights violations in the region were published. These regarded extreme surveillance, numerous detention camps, forced labour, forced religious conversion (eg. being force-fed pork which is prohibited in Islam), political indoctrination, torture, and alleged forced sterilisation to decrease birth rates (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

China denies the allegations of abuse and violations and has deemed the actions taken by the government as “anti-extremist campaigns”. They have also named the camps “vocational training centres” in order to combat terrorism and extremism (Sudworth, 2019). This situation is currently ongoing and therefore does not have a guaranteed result. However, China’s veto power and diplomatic leverage as a member of the P5 is used as a shield from any and all attempts of sanctions by the Security Council. Nonetheless, efforts are being made to hold China accountable for its human rights violations and will likely progress with their efforts in the future.

7.3 IMF and the Greece Debt Crisis

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) played a crucial role in the Greek debt crisis, which began in 2009 and lasted for several years. The crisis was one of the most significant economic events in recent European history, involving complex interactions between Greece, the IMF, the European Union (EU), and the European Central Bank. 

Greece’s debt crisis was triggered by a combination of high levels of public debt, budget deficits, and a lack of competitiveness. In 2010, as Greece faced the prospect of defaulting on its debt, the IMF, along with the European Union and the European Central Bank (often referred to as the “Troika”), stepped in to provide financial assistance. The IMF’s involvement came with strict conditions aimed at reducing Greece’s budget deficits and restoring economic stability. However, these austerity measures were deeply unpopular in Greece, leading to widespread protests and political instability. While the IMF argued that austerity was necessary to restore confidence in the Greek economy, critics argued that the measures worsened the economic situation, leading to a deep recession, high unemployment, and increased poverty.

7.4 Russia-Ukraine War

The Russian-Ukrainian War began on February 24th, 2022 and is ongoing. The conflict has earlier starting points in 2014, where, following Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea from Ukraine whilst supporting pro-Russian separatists fighting the Ukrainian military during the Donbas War. These first eight years up until 2022 consisted of naval incidents and cyberwarfare. However, as the years passed, the tensions only increased until, on February 24th 2022, Russian president, Vladmir Putin, announced a  “special military operation” against Ukraine. He claimed it was in support of Russia’s breakaway republics, Donetsk and Lunhansk, paramilitary forces that have been fighting Ukraine since. This battle has proven extremely influential in terms of countries’ political stance; three groups have formed including those who sided with Russia, those who pledged support to Ukraine, and a group of non-aligned nations resisting involvement and hedging their bets. The European Union (EU) states quickly responded with major sanctions and action against Russia despite some fragmentation as demonstrated by the oil price cap as well as Germany’s reluctance to send tanks and other weaponry. 

A week after the invasion, the UN General Assembly created a resolution condemning Russia’s belligerence. This was passed by the majority, however, there were 35 abstentions, and among them were the three Commonwealth states – South Africa, Pakistan, and India. 

Conclusion

Through the examples of these ongoing crises – the Uyghur situation, Russia-Ukraine, the Syrian Civil War – we have drawn out the raw impacts made by political, economic and social factors in the world of international organisations. As events continue to evolve, we see tangible shifts in power dynamics across international organisations in their political stances, projects aiming to provide economic aid, and efforts to spread information, and it is clear that large, multi-national organisations do not work independently of socio-political and economic influences.

Al Bashir. International Criminal Court. (n.d.). https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir 

Ba, O. (2023, April 19). A Truly International Criminal Court. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2021-06-18/truly-international-criminal-court#:~:text=In%20 recent%20 years%2C%20the%20 ICC,14%20 active%20 investigations%20 involve%20Africa. 

‌BBC NEWS. (2022, May 24). Who Are the Uyghurs and Why Is China Being Accused of Genocide? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.

China Human Rights Record Comes Under UN Scrutiny. (2024, January 23). Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/china-human-rights-record-comes-under-un-scrutiny/7451961.html#.

Coles, S., S.C. (2023, February 20). Seven ways Russia’s war on Ukraine has changed the world. 

Chatham House.org. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/02/seven-ways-russias-war-ukraine-has-changed-world.

‌Council on Foreign Relations. (2023, February 28). The UN Security Council. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council.

COVID-19 and the Labour Market in Argentina. https://www.ilo.org/media/391661/download#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20the%20pre,the%20economic%20outlook%20remained%20uncertain.

Ernst, C., Mourelo, E. L., Pizzicannella, M., Roj, S., & Romero, C. (n.d.). The challenge of fighting against the pandemic and its socio-economic impact in a period of serious economic challenges.

Fortna, V. P. (2004). Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War. International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 269-292.

Garg, R. (2020, November 5). Specialized agencies established by the United Nations Organisation – iPleaders. IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/specialized-agencies-established-united-nations-organisation/.

Goldstein, J. L., Kahler, M., Keohane, R. O., & Slaughter, A. M. (1998). Legalization and World Politics. MIT Press.

Human Rights Watch. (2023, August 31). China: Unrelenting Crimes Against Humanity. Targeting Uyghurs. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/31/china-unrelenting-crimes-against-humanity-targeting-uyghurs.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Reports, 1986. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). ICJ.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Reports, 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion). ICJ.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Reports, 2007. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). ICJ.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. Pearson Education.

Kilic, J. A., & D, M. J. (2021, March 30). Socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 in low-income countries. Nature Human Behaviour. Retrieved August 24, 2024.

Mbaku , J. M., & Pugliese, J. (2016, July 29). Can the International Criminal Court and the African Union Repair Relations?. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-the-international-criminal-court-and-the-african-union-repair-relations/. 

Mingst, K. (2019). International organisation. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-organisation.

Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International organisation, 54(2), 217-252.

O’Dell, H. (2023, December 18). How the US has used its power in the UN to support Israel for decades. Globalaffairs.org. https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/how-us-has-used-its-power-un-support-israel-decades.

Oxfam family. (2006, September). Unequal partners: How EUACP economic partnership agreements (epas) could harm the development prospects of many of the world’s poorest countries. Oxfam Policy & Practice. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/unequal-partners-how-euacp-economic-partnership-agreements-epas-could-harm-the-115057/. 

Paul, T. V. (2000). Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons. McGill-Queen’s Press.

Phillips, C. (2016). The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. Yale University Press.

Putz, C. (2020, October 9). 2020 Edition: Which Countries Are For or Against China’s Xinjiang Policies? The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/2020-edition-which-countries-are-for-or-against-chinas-xinjiang-policies/.

‌Qian, J., Vreeland, J. R., & Zhao, J. (2023). The Impact of China’s AIIB on the World Bank. International organisation, 77(1), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818322000327.

Rowe, E., & Russell, N. (n.d.). The ICC-African Relationship: More Complex Than a Simplistic Dichotomy. https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/view/75/59. 

Sanger, D. E., & Gordon, M. R. (2013). “Deal Reached to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms”. The New York Times.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company.

United Nations. (2023, November 17). Question of veto central to general Assembly’s debate on Security Council reform, with speakers urging its limited use as “weapon of hatred and war” | meetings coverage and press releases. United Nations. https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12563.doc.htm. 

‌Sudworth, J. (2019, July 4). China Muslims: Xinjiang schools used to separate children from families. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48825090.

Thacker, S. C. (1999). The High Politics of IMF Lending. World Politics, 52(1), 38-75.

Voeten, E. (2005). The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force. International organisation, 59(3), 527-557.

Weiss, T. G. (2003). The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform. The Washington Quarterly, 26(4), 147-161.

Weiss, T. G. (2014). The United Nations: Before, During and After 1945. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 90(2), 349-370.

Winters, E. A. (2017, May 16). Making sense of the UN Specialized Agencies, Funds, and Programmes. AMUN. https://www.amun.org/specialized-agencies/.

Woods, N. (2006). The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers. Cornell University Press.

Wright, T. (2010). Sovereignty and Multilateralism. Global Governance, 16(2), 227-248.

Zunes, S. (2020). Russia and China’s Syria Vetoes Are an Abuse of Power. Foreign Policy in Focus. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01096-7.