Latest news with #oftheUnitedNations
Jordan News
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Jordan News
UN80: Our Achievements Should Give Us Hope for a Better Future - Jordan News
Eighty years ago this month, the Charter of the United Nations was signed in San Francisco, turning the page on decades of war and offering hope for a better future. For 80 years the United Nations has stood as the highest expression of our hopes for international cooperation, and as the fullest embodiment of our aspiration to end the 'scourge of war.' Even in a world steeped in cynicism, this is a milestone worth acknowledging. اضافة اعلان The United Nations remains the only organisation of its kind, and the only one to have endured for so long. That longevity is remarkable when we consider the context of its founding: assembled from the rubble of not one, but two global cataclysms. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, had collapsed in disgrace. No organisation is flawless. But to paraphrase the second Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld: the United Nations was created not to take humanity to heaven but to save us from hell. In that mission, it has not failed. We continue to witness heart-wrenching scenes of war—in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The recent escalation between Iran and Israel is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace particularly in the tension-prone Middle East region. Yet amid the violence, we have managed to avert a third global war. In a nuclear age, that is an achievement we can never take for granted. It is one we must preserve with the full force of our efforts. Over the past eight decades, much of human development also bears the direct imprint of the United Nations. Consider the success of the Millennium Development Goals, adopted in 2000 by 189 Member States and more than 20 international organisations, which gave the world a shared roadmap for action. By 2015, compared to 1990, extreme poverty was more than halved. Child mortality had fallen by nearly 50 percent. And millions of children — especially girls who had long been denied the right — had entered school for the first time. Now, as we strive to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, we must build on that legacy of progress. We must continue efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal health coverage and produce and consume sustainably. There is another story of progress, often overlooked: the dismantling of empire. Eighty years ago, colonialism cast its shadow over much of the world. Today, more than 80 former colonies across Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific have gained independence and joined the United Nations. That transition, supported and legitimised by this Organisation, reshaped the global order. It was a triumph of self-determination, a profound affirmation of the Charter's most fundamental principle: the sovereign equality of all States. Evolving for the future The world has changed dramatically since 1945. Today, the Organisation faces a deepening liquidity crisis. Despite the promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, progress has been uneven. Gender equality continues to elude us. Our pledge to limit global temperature rise and protect our planet is slipping beyond reach. These setbacks do not warrant diminished ambition but greater resolve. The United Nations has always shown its worth in times of crisis. Its founders had witnessed humanity at its most destructive and responded not with despair, but with boldness. We must draw on these achievements. The spirit of San Francisco was not utopian. It was grounded in a sober understanding of what was at stake. It held that, even amid deep division, nations could still choose cooperation over conflict and action over apathy. We saw that spirit last September, when world leaders gathered in New York for the Summit of the Future. After difficult negotiations, they adopted the Pact for the Future and its annexes—the Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact—by consensus. In doing so, they pledged to renew multilateralism for a world more complex, connected, and fragile than the one imagined in 1945. That spirit endures today. It lives in the resolve of 193 Member States, in the integrity of international civil servants, and in the quiet determination of those who believe firmly in the promise of the Charter. It is carried forward by the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative, which calls on us to deliver better for humanity; and to look to the future with adaptability and hope. As we mark this anniversary, we must rekindle the call for unity and solidarity that rang out from San Francisco 80 years ago. We built a world order once, in the ruins of war. We did so with vision and urgency. Now, again, we find ourselves at a moment of consequence. The risks are high. So too is our capacity to act.
Middle East Eye
3 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Russia strongly condemns US attacks on Iran, foreign ministry says
Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that Russia strongly condemns the US attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. "The irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb attacks, whatever the arguments it may be presented with, flagrantly violates international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council," the ministry said in its statement. "We call for an end to aggression and for increased efforts to create conditions for returning the situation to a political and diplomatic track," the ministry said. Reporting by Reuters
Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Did India breach international law during Operation Sindoor? Here's what the UN Charter says
Written by N Manoharan and Anusha G Rao In a press statement, Pakistan accused India's retaliatory actions of being 'a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and established norms governing interstate relations.' But did India, in fact, violate any of these? According to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations: '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.' Despite being a UN member, Pakistan has consistently violated this very principle. From time to time, it has issued threats and gone on to use force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of India, a founding member of the United Nations. The infamous adage, 'We will wage a war for a thousand years,' attributed to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the phrase 'Bleed India by a thousand cuts,' popularised by Zia ul-Haq, are well known. Since Independence, India has faced both conventional and sub-conventional use of force by Pakistan. The UN Charter permits a response in self-defence under Article 51: 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' This provision, though not present in the initial draft of the Charter, was included in the final version in response to legitimate concerns raised by smaller states. The right to self-defence — whether individual or collective — is recognised as an inherent right. Importantly, it predates the existence of the United Nations and is rooted in customary international law. It draws on the Caroline incident of 1837, a dispute between the United States and the British Government regarding US support to Canadian rebels. The right to self-defence has since been interpreted to include anticipatory self-defence or pre-emption, which requires that the threat be 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation' — a standard known in international law as the Caroline test. India has consistently observed this principle, ensuring its actions in self-defence are limited strictly by necessity. All collective security arrangements — NATO, for instance — are based on the principle of collective self-defence as outlined in Article 51. However, in the present context, India has exercised its inherent right to individual self-defence. In 1971, New Delhi signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the then-Soviet Union to secure a collective self-defence mechanism in anticipation of possible great-power involvement in the impending war with Pakistan. This mechanism proved effective in deterring the United States from intervening. Since the UN Charter refers primarily to state actors, a critical question arises: What if non-state actors are involved in the 'armed attack'? In the Nicaragua case (1986), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that: 'The support given by the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the Contras in Nicaragua — by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistical support — constituted a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention.' This judgment reiterated the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (1970), which stated: 'No State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.' This principle was further strengthened by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), which defines aggression to include: 'Sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to acts of aggression.' The link between state and non-state actors is therefore well established in international law. Specifically in the context of Pakistan, one senior Pakistan army officer once remarked during the Khalistan movement in the 1980s that keeping India's Punjab 'destabilised was equivalent to the Pakistan army having an extra division at no cost'. This rationale applies more broadly to the destabilisation of India in general, and Jammu and Kashmir in particular. What, then, about compensation for the damage caused by armed attacks? Interestingly, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ did order reparations, ruling: 'The United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens patriae for the citizens of Nicaragua, reparations for damages to persons, property and the Nicaraguan economy caused by the foregoing violations of international law, in a sum to be determined by the Court. Nicaragua reserves the right to introduce to the Court a precise evaluation of the damages caused by the United States.' India not only adhered diligently to international law in the present standoff, but also refrained from pressing for reparations for the immense damage to life and property caused by Pakistan's actions over the years. It is perhaps time India considers approaching the ICJ for reparations. Manoharan is professor and director, Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru. Rao is an advocate based in Bengaluru
Egypt Today
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Egypt Today
Egypt condemns Israeli 'reckless statements' on establishing Palestinian state in KSA
Gaza under Israeli aggression - file CAIRO - 8 February 2025: Egypt condemned in the strongest terms the irresponsible and unacceptable statements issued by the Israeli side, which incite against the sisterly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state on Saudi territory, in direct violation of Saudi sovereignty and a blatant breach of the rules of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The Arab Republic of Egypt completely rejected these "reckless statements" that affect the security and sovereignty of the Kingdom, and affirms that the security of the sisterly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and respect for its sovereignty is a red line that Egypt will not allow to be violated. Egypt further stressed that these unbridled Israeli statements towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia constitute a reprehensible transgression and an infringement on all established diplomatic norms and a violation of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to establish their independent state on their entire national territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem according to the lines of June 4, 1967. Egypt affirms its full support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against these reckless statements, and calls on the international community to condemn and denounce them completely.
