International Legitimacy and the UN

With the resignation of Claire Short from Tony Blair's cabinet, I think it's worth discussing whether the UN actually does what so many people claim: giving the actions of individual member states international legitimacy. Well, I think many people are right in this respect. The UN can and does confer legitimacy in a very novel way. It is wrong though (in my opinion) to say that it is the only source of legitimacy, or rather, the only valid source of legitimacy.

Firstly, let us consider the UN's problems.
1) The UN is not a world government, and without serious reworking of its charter, it can not be and will never be one. Actually, in many respects, this is a good thing.
2) The UN as an institution is hindered by its institutional legacy and inertia. If I may explain... the UN's General Assembly (GA) was a holdover of the pre-WWII League of Nations. As such, the GA is a talk shop devoid of significant geopolitical power. Before you cry blasphemy, please hear me out. There are serious limits to what can be said in resolutions passed by the GA. At most, the GA can only suggest a course of action, or beg one party to do something. At its nastiest, the GA can condemn a nation for its actions, but this is really only an expression of international opinion that has little bearing inside a country willing to ignore it. The Security Council (SC) embodies Franklin Delano Roosevelt's idea of the "four policemen". He had this bad idea that the permanent members of the SC would enforce the world order, and it stuck. The body does wield significant power, but it is not really representative of the balance of world power (of course, it's hard to measure this kind of thing). The weakness of the SC is that the permanent members block significant action on important issues, and with good cause too! That leads us to the next problem...
3) The UN is a venue in which foreign policy, and international politics plays out. This is just reality. The actions of the UN tend to be tainted by national interests. During the building up to the Iraq war, the US and France fought to legitimise their respective positions in the UN for better or for worse. While there are certainly examples of selfless action in the UN, I believe that such occasions are in the minority. How many times has action been avoided because a permanent member of the security council didn't like it? Or some coalition of nations is not in favour because the decision affects them?
4) The UN has a contradictory mission. It is supposed to protect human rights, and promote democratic freedoms on some level. At the same time, it is supposed to preserve national sovereignty. Incidentally, this tends to trump the UN's other mandates. The UN is a bit like a vampire: it needs to be invited in. Take Zimbabwe for an example. Without a doubt, Zimbabweans are being made to suffer, their human rights are being violated, and their democratic freedoms are being denied. Can the UN do something? Without the Zimbabwean government's approval, there is practically nothing that the UN agencies can do to alleviate the situation.
5) The UN is abused through the use of political horse-trading. How do you think Libya got to head one of the UN's human rights commissions? Sure, Libya has come a long way, but Qaddafi still has hundreds, if not thousands of political prisoners. Imagine the mayhem if a rogue state were to head the international criminal court
6) The UN just what its name implies: a union of nations, not people. the European Union is trying to represent the European people as well as their nations. The UN doesn't even come close. There is no world parliament. People have no representation at the UN. As such, the UN is not to be held accountable to people, only the nations that support it. There can not and should not be any expectation that the UN will adopt a course of action just because it's popular. Sure, millions of people opposed the war in Iraq (before it ended), but the UN didn't condemn it (neither did it support the war).
7) International law is quite murky and complicated. It can only be enforced so far as national governments are willing to cooperate. With regards to international conventions, they can only be binding if ratified by the representatives of the people: the parliament or equivalent. I must admit that my knowledge of international law is quite limited. I am quite sceptical of the whole issue though. The International Criminal Court is supposed to make strides towards enforcing international human rights law. Without political support from nations though, it cannot survive. It also lacks the executive and legislative support that a national judicial system enjoys. International accords are composed by diplomats: appointed representatives of elected governments. What executive branch enforces international law? Certainly not the UN secretariat. It exists on a skeleton budget. Another important issue is that there is no international constitution, and nobody similar to the supreme courts within nations that determine whether international law is constitutional. There is no judicial review or appeal.

Don't get me wrong. I like the UN. Actually, I've participated in a number of model UN events. People who are celebrating the end of the UN right now are likely to be disappointed. The UN does many things well. Multilateral aid management, in my opnion, has a much better track record than bilateral aid. The UN tends to handle development issues quite well. The UN's peacekeeping operations have probably saved millions of lives. At least by representating nations, it is harder for minority interests and NGOs to foist their specific agendas upon the world community, noble though they may be.

The likelyhood of reform of the UN is quite low. Diplomats have talked about restructuring the SC to eliminate the permanent seats, and to increase the size of the body. The permanent members (especially Russia, France and the UK) are likely to continue to block such attempts because they would lose power as a result. The formation of a world parliament under the auspices of the UN is incredibly unlikely because that would weaken the power of national governments.

So, what about the original question? Does the UN confer legitimacy upon actions at the international level? Yes, to the extent that it is only a plurality of other nations that provide their support. Is this legitimacy important? It can be. It is only important so far as national governments value and respect it.

For some, the war in Iraq was a slap in the face. So many people seemed to be against it. Nevertheless, only a few national governments acted vociferously against the war. It is important to note that the UN is not the be all and end all of legitimacy. According to American public opinion, there was broad support for the Bush government throughout the war. Polls showed George W. Bush's popularity was way above 50% during the fighting, and continues be so. Clearly, the administration had a mandate from the American people for the conflict. Did the American people not provide some legitimacy to the actions of their government?

I will get back to this issue later.