The United Nations was formed in 1945. Several independent states became members of this organization with a common objective of promoting international peace and security. There has been a long standing debate about the ethical nature of this organization. Preventive actions taken by the UN as a justification to protect the state are at times criticized. William V. O’Brien criticizes on the basis that, the right of defense can only be used when the specified criterion are fulfilled. These criterion include; intent, imminence, and proportionality (Lango, 2005). The magnitude of the threat needs to be understood by the UN forces before launching a preventive act towards another country’s territory. Another principle that needs to be satisfied before war can be justified is the concept of proportionality. This idea emphasizes upon the benefits gained from war. In other words, the benefits gained from war must be greater than the harms it causes.
On paper these principles make sense and seem to have a rational approach. However, in reality this is not always the case. The UN does not strictly go by these principles when attacking or defending its member countries against terror. The UN members may have enmities and apprehensions against some countries; these are evident in the policies and laws imposed by these countries. Furthermore, the UN authorities themselves may have biases which are depicted through their acceptance of policies and procedures. A true ethical organization would be one where the rules are not bended for anyone under any circumstances.
Keeping into consideration, the above arguments I have formed the opinion that the UN is not a true ethical institution. If it practices true equality and attempt to serve justice to all its members only then would it qualify for an ethical organization. People may oppose my viewpoint but the meaning of an ethical organization needs to be thoroughly understood to base one’s argument upon.
Works Cited
Lango, John W.. "Preventive Wars, Just war Principles, and the United Nations." The Journal of Ethics 9 (2005): 247-268. Print.
