Tragedy Propelling Unity: Uniting for Peace in Ukraine

Dr Richard Illingworth writes on the Responsibility to Protect and the unity displayed by the recent invocation of Uniting for Peace to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Tragedy and Unity

Watching events unfold in Ukraine it is impossible to not feel a sense of tragedy. Tragedy in the fact that over 1,000,000 civilians have been forced to flee, tragedy in the death and destruction that the war has and will continue to inflict, and tragedy in the fact that a supposed democracy like Russia can wage a war in flagrant violation of principles of international law and peaceful co-existence against a democratic and peaceful nation in Europe.

Yet what is also striking is the unity that this tragedy has produced. Unity among the states who have imposed severe sanctions against Russia, despite the negative economic consequences this will bring those states; unity in the outpouring of support for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he galvanises his country to resist aggression, and unity of Ukraine’s European neighbours as they take in refugees fleeing the conflict, including states who have previously sought to evade refugee responsibilities in the past like Poland and Hungary.

The Responsibility to Protect and its struggles

Unity is at the heart of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (RtoP): a universal commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

Paragraph 139 of the 2005 United Nations (UN) World Summit Outcome, in which RtoP was adopted, declares that the international community is prepared to take timely and decisive action to protect against mass atrocity. Paragraph 139 also states, however, that such action will take place ‘through the Security Council’; the body charged with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. A functioning UN Security Council is therefore desirable, and if we follow the World Summit Outcome to the letter, is essential for a functioning RtoP.

The problem is that the Security Council does not effectively function to discharge its RtoP. The ‘veto’ power of the Council's five permanent members (P5) (Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) allows any member of the P5 to prevent a draft resolution from passing. This means that even if 14/15 Council members vote in favour of a draft resolution, but one of the permanent members votes against it, the Council can be left unable to discharge its responsibilities.

To evidence the Security Council’s failings, we need only look at the 16 vetoed draft resolutions over Syria since 2011, the failure to even put a draft resolution to a vote over events in Myanmar since 2017, and of course the veto by the Russian Federation on 25 February 2022 which sought to condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, while calling on respect for international humanitarian law, human rights, and the protection of civilians.

This leaves open the question of how the international community can effectively discharge its RtoP to protect human beings from mass atrocity when the Security Council will not act.

Uniting for Peace through the UN General Assembly

It is worth noting that Paragraph 139 of the World Summit Outcome also ‘stress[es] the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect… bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law’. While this has been interpreted to mean that the Assembly will continue to debate and refine the meaning of what RtoP is and what this requires of atrocity prevention efforts, what this also demonstrates is that the Assembly itself has a Responsibility to Protect.

Article 24(1) of the UN Charter confers primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security with the Security Council. However, primary responsibility does not denote exclusive responsibility.

The General Assembly under Article 1(1) of the Charter, as a principle organ of the UN, has a responsibility to ‘maintain international peace and security… and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace’. The International Court of Justice has previously determined that the General Assembly holds a secondary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Furthermore, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Charter specifically lay out the General Assembly’s powers to discuss and make recommendations to meet this responsibility.

As an attempt to galvanise the UN General Assembly into acting on these Charter-based powers and responsibility, the ‘Uniting for Peace’ mechanism was adopted in November 1950.

Uniting for Peace resolves that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, then the Assembly can convene an emergency special session to consider the matter with a view to making recommendations in the name of restoring peace. Uniting for Peace can be activated either by the Security Council via a procedural vote of at least 9/15 members (not subject to the P5’s veto power), or by the General Assembly itself via a two-thirds majority of members.

Uniting for peace has not been utilised often (12 or 13 times since 1950, depending on how one counts), demonstrating the gravity of situations where member states have sought to invoke it. The request of the UN Security Council on 27 February 2022 to convene an emergency special session of the General Assembly over Ukraine was first time Uniting for Peace has been invoked by the Security Council in 40 years (the last time it was invoked by the General Assembly was 25 years ago).

Uniting for Peace and the legal powers of the General Assembly offer an avenue for international response that is complementary to the goals of RtoP.

Uniting for Peace in Ukraine

The General Assembly vote on 2 March 2022, adopted by a vote of 141-5, has entirely delegitimised Russia’s claims that it is acting with humanitarian reasons in mind. The resolution condemns Russian aggression in strong terms, calls for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops, as well as unhindered access for humanitarian assistance.

Former US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, claims that the vote represents a ‘dramatic, historic, unprecedented repudiation of the Russian invasion’. The General Assembly resolution deploring Russia’s aggression and violations of international law places Russia firmly on the wrong side of history; showing that this isn’t a case of NATO and the West condemning Russia, but that this is the world united in its condemnation of Russia.

The General Assembly need not stop here, however. Beyond this important rhetorical condemnation, the General Assembly can choose to press ahead with diplomatic efforts in attempt to restore peace, call on member states to fulfil their own obligations under international law, or choose to recommend other measures in attempt to deter further Russian aggression. Such measures can be complementary to the goals of RtoP. A recent report by Rebecca Barber highlights the wide range of tools at the disposal of the General Assembly for fulfilling its Responsibility to Protect.

These tools may include, for instance, the recommendation that member states impose targeted sanctions on Russia and any accomplices. The General Assembly may also seek to encourage member states to fulfil their duties to Ukrainian refugees. The Assembly could also look to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russian forces, which could help inform future criminal prosecutions at the International Criminal Court and beyond.

The UN General Assembly, unlike the UN Security Council, is a universal body within which all member states are equally represented, and where action cannot be obstructed by one single member. This means that, as Nahlawi notes, General Assembly decisions carry a high degree of moral legitimacy, and are largely representative of the will of the international community. By convening an emergency special session under Uniting for Peace, the General Assembly is stepping up to fulfil the Responsibility to Protect.

The ongoing tragedy in Ukraine has united the United Nations, providing an opportunity to act together in the name of peace, to stand up for the principles of the UN Charter, and to take action complementary to the goals of RtoP and the protection of fundamental human rights.

Richard Illingworth is an early-career researcher working at the European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, University of Leeds. His research focuses on measures to enhance the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. His latest article is forthcoming in Global Studies Quarterly: ‘An R2P Commission: A Proposal for Holding States Accountable to Their Responsibility to Protect’.

If you are interested in submitting a blog post for the ECR2P’s Fresh Perspectives series, then please contact Dr Richard Illingworth by Email (r.illingworth@leeds.ac.uk) or Twitter (@RJI95).