United Nations: Dissolved and Reformed?
I observed on 3rd Jan 2026, [1] that the United States has flagrantly broken its committment to the Charter of the United Nations [2] articles 2.3 and 2.4; I quote:
Article 2 paragraph 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
Article 2 paragraph 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
So, of course, did the Russian Federation in 2014 and again in 2022. I concluded in January [1]:
"The answer has to be that they leave the Club, the consortium of civilised nations. Nobody can force the US; all we can do is isolate them, ignore them."
I supposed that one reason why no one can force the exclusion of the USA or Russia, following club protocol, was 'the veto'; which first came into play in 1946, used by The Soviet Union, and used 29 time over the years by Great Britain. However, when I scoured the Charter for the word 'veto' I found only this:
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. (My emphasis.)
Note that there is no veto in the General Assembly, nor in the Security Council on procedural matters and matters concerning action under Chapter VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes"). That chapter requires that states shall "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."). And must recuse themselves if they are party to the dispute. (See the excellent Wikipedia article on United Nations Security Council veto power [3])
Unfortunately there is no coercive powers in Chapter VI; those are covered in Chapter VII: "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression." Under that chapter, action requires the "concurring votes of the permanent members."
So, it turns out to be not just a question of: "Who will bell-the-cat? Who will attach the leash and lead the United State/Russian Federation away?". It is a deliberate escape clause inserted by the five Great Powers of the time (1945) to protect their sovereignty and self interests. As it turns out, the "Great Powers" are precisely those that most need to be curbed. What is to be done?
Let us look at Chapter VII before considering the drastic step of forming a new United Nations which explicitly excludes all powers from using the veto if they are party to a dispute (Britain's position in 1945). Article 41 lists some non-violent but coercive measures, Article 42, considers the use of force.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Others have pointed out that the discussion of breaches of the Charter can not be vetoed. I think that would put some pressure on one of the Great Powers that had gone rogue.
And I think we have yet to see how much pressure can be applied by smaller nations acting together under Article 41.
References:
[1] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
[2] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
