United Nations (UN), international organization established immediately after World War II. It replaced the League of Nations.
The Charter of the United Nations comprises a preamble and 19 chapters divided into 111 articles. The charter sets forth the purposes of the UN as: the maintenance of international peace and security; the development of friendly relations among states; and the achievement of cooperation in solving international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems. It expresses a strong hope for the equality of all people and the expansion of basic freedoms.
The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.
Since its foundation in 1945, the United Nations was conceived as an instrument to face the most relevant global challenges emerging in the international system. Its structure and functioning was designed to curtail the negative effects of globalization, such as the spread of transnational threats, and to grant peace and security. Although for many time the UN system had proved to be successful in addressing a number of global issues, during the last years, it has revealed some important deficiencies and weaknesses. This has made the Member States call for a reform of the UN in terms of structure and powers.
The maintenance of peace and security has always been a priority to the UN Member States. To achieve this objective, the organization was provided with an executive organism, which would have held the exclusive power to deal with those issues: the Security Council. Its action to promote peace and security helped the international community to solve the worst crisis of the past century and to avert the horrors of another World War. This was the case during the ‘60s and ‘70s when the political commitment of the Security Council helped to prevent the escalation of the US-USSR conflict.
Those were also the years which saw a relevant enlargement of the membership in the UN, as the new born states, resulting from the decolonization process, submitted their admission request to join the international security system created in 1945. This showed that, although their interests and objectives might have been different in terms of economic goals or social policies, they shared with the UN’s founders a primary concern: the maintenance of peace and security. Indeed, this was an essential condition for the new born states, as international stability would have allowed them to concentrate on internal processes of state-building and nation-building.
Not only did the UN develop as a successful universal International Organization but it also became a forum to discuss and address other important issues such as equitable and sustainable development, economic and monetary stability, etc. The General Assembly was conceived to meet this goal and, during its activity, it has proved to be essential to elaborate a joint action to face global issues.
Despite the fact that the UN’s commitment to deal with international questions has been outstanding, nowadays its system reveals some important weaknesses.
Firstly, the new contemporary global challenges are jeopardizing its solidity and effectiveness. An example comes from the spread of security threats, such as transnational terrorism and illicit arms trade. These phenomena have highlighted the limits of the Security Council’s action, and, in general, of the UN’s security system to assure peace and international stability.
When threats come from non-state actors (which are not linked to any specific territory and do not represent any political entity), it is tough for the UN to elaborate an effective plan to hinder them. To many observers, the main deficiency of the UN’s security system consists in the lack of an international army.
Initially, the founders planned to build a military structure under the direct control of the Security Council in order to successfully implement the common military actions to restore peace (art. 43 and 45 UN Chart).
However, the project failed due to the reluctance of its Member States to create a common army. Not only the UN military structure would have had an outstanding destructive capacity compared to the national armies but it would have also required a relevant financial commitment of its Member States.
A second weakness concerning the UN’s functioning is related to the lack of democratic mechanisms and accountability, which affects its structure. The composition of the Security Council still reflects the power distribution of 1945 as the five permanent members (United States, France, United Kingdom, China and Russia) hold more powers and prerogatives (e.g. the veto power) than the non-permanent ones. Since the power distribution has strongly changed during the last decades and values of equality between sovereign states have spread in the international community, the composition of the Security Council appears to be anachronistic.
The third main deficiency of the UN system consists in the absence of a mechanism to empower the judgements of the International Court of Justice. When the ICJ was created, it was agreed that states would have had to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in order to allow it to judge their controversies. This was the consequence of two circumstances. Firstly, there was no world government that could force states to respect and enforce the judgements of the ICJ. Secondly, being states jealous of their independence and powers, they prevented any attempt to limit their sovereignty. In this way, no mechanism to assure the respect of the Court’s decisions was provided and, nowadays, the implementation of its judgements still rests on the will of the Member States.
Highlighting these deficiencies has brought the international community to urge a structural and substantial reform of the UN system. It is undeniable that, since its foundation, UNO has undergone a number of considerable transformations. However, some important progress still has to be attained in order to improve its efficiency and to grant the effectiveness of its action up against the new global challenges, contemporary security issues and international threats.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)