Skip to main content

Tagungsbericht

Workshop Report

80 Years UN: Back to Square One? Between Geopolitical Powerlessness and Unresolved Reform Issues

In late November 2025, the Human Rights Centre of the University of Potsdam hosted an international academic workshop marking the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations. Under the provocative title “80 Years UN: Back to Square One?”, leading scholars, practitioners, and diplomats examined the organisation’s current state, its continued normative relevance, and the prospects of reform at a time of stark geopolitical confrontation. Across eight panels, the discussions revealed a mixture of deep concern and cautious optimism: the UN faces unprecedented pressure, yet retains an indispensable—if fragile—role in global governance.

 

1. Setting the Scene: The UN at 80 – Resilience, Decline, or Quiet Disappearance?

The workshop opened with a critical assessment by Prof. Manuel Fröhlich (University of Trier), who described the UN’s eightieth anniversary as overshadowed by indifference. Rather than inspiring renewed commitment, the anniversary year was characterised by shrinking budgets, a lack of reform ambition, and a noticeable disconnect between the organisation’s challenges and the political debates of the General Assembly. Fröhlich warned of a “quiet disappearance” of the UN from public attention—an erosion not driven by open contestation but by neglect and geopolitical distraction.

He linked the current malaise to the UN’s historical cycles of crisis, noting parallels to earlier periods marked by financial strain and conflicting interpretations of Charter principles, especially regarding the use of force. What is different today, he argued, is the combination of structural weakness and a rapidly shifting international order in which member states increasingly seek alternative forums, regional formats, or issue-specific coalitions.

Prof. Andrew Hurrell (University of Oxford) expanded the picture by analysing how different parts of the world perceive the UN’s crisis. While Western states often lament the organisation’s stagnation, many non-Western states—particularly China—see opportunity. China deploys significant diplomatic resources to influence UN bodies, whereas the United States invests less consistently in multilateral processes. Hurrell emphasised that the organisation now operates in a landscape shaped by competing security concepts, divergent historical narratives, and the strategic use of anti-colonial rhetoric to contest elements of the liberal international order.

Discussion Summary

The lively exchange that followed reflected wide concern about the loss of shared vision. Participants pointed to:

  • Insufficient leadership by the Secretary-General on articulating the UN’s contemporary purpose.
  • Weak ownership by the Global South, accompanied by scepticism toward reforms perceived as Western-driven.
  • Erosion of trust in institutions due to domestic political polarisation, particularly in Western democracies.
  • Persistent structural inequalities, including unresolved issues of colonial justice and global economic imbalances.
  • Fragmentation of expectations, as states no longer agree on what role the UN should fulfil—from guardian of peace to provider of global goods.

Several participants underlined that the problems the UN was created to address—security, inequality, environmental degradation—remain acute; however, consensus on how to tackle them is weakening. The session concluded with a reflection on the responsibilities of academics in shaping the debate and contributing to re-imagining multilateralism.

 

2. A System Check of the UN: Which Institutions Still Matter?

In the second panel, Prof. Andrea Liese (University of Potsdam) shifted the focus to institutional effectiveness. Despite operational shortcomings, she highlighted that public approval rates for the UN remain surprisingly high. Citizens across the globe continue to view the organisation as a necessary platform for addressing transnational problems, even when they criticise its performance. This gap between expectations and capabilities underscores the challenge of defining what “effectiveness” means for a complex, multi-institutional system like the UN.

Prof. Carlos Esposito (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) provided brief comments, encouraging a clearer differentiation between normative ambition and institutional capacity. Discussions centred on methodological questions: how should one measure the value of institutions whose main function may not be direct problem-solving but agenda-setting, norm development, or providing political arenas for contestation?

Discussion Summary

Participants broadly agreed that the UN’s value cannot be reduced to operational output. Some institutions matter because they produce binding decisions, others because they maintain legitimate spaces for dialogue. The panel served as a conceptual bridge to the more issue-specific discussions that followed.

 

3. Peaceful Settlement, Peacebuilding, and Peace Enforcement: A Changing Legal Landscape

The third panel, introduced by Prof. Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen (University of Copenhagen), examined the growing role of international courts in conflict-related matters. She highlighted the International Court of Justice’s expanding docket under the Genocide Convention, including cases involving Myanmar, Russia, Israel, Germany, and the UAE. The ICJ increasingly relies on UN documentation while carefully avoiding institutional overreach—a delicate balance in politically charged disputes.

The presentation also addressed the International Criminal Court’s evolving practice. Recent arrest warrants against sitting heads of state, and divergent interpretations of Article 27 of the Rome Statute, have intensified debates over whether ICC obligations bind non-parties.

Discussion Summary

The panel generated a technically rich discussion, including:

  • Debates on pacta tertiis, sparked by ICJ statements suggesting that certain obligations may extend to non-parties.
  • Differences between international law and international criminal law communities, particularly regarding immunity doctrines.
  • Concerns about overreliance on the Genocide Convention, with several participants cautioning that the ICJ should not be transformed into a forum for adjudicating the full spectrum of modern conflicts.

Overall, the panel highlighted both the promise and the limits of judicial avenues for peace and accountability.

 

4. Human Rights Protection within the UN: Strain, Resilience, and New Actors

In the fourth panel, Prof. Nina Reiners (University of Oslo) questioned whether political polarisation is necessarily harmful to the human rights regime. While acknowledging the growing assertiveness of authoritarian states and the shrinking of civic space—conditions affecting most of the global population—she noted that contestation can also clarify normative positions. A particularly worrying development is the severe budget crisis: the cancellation of treaty body sessions (A/80/294) illustrates how financial constraints now undermine core monitoring mechanisms.

The presentation also examined the rise of new actors, such as private law firms engaging in global human rights litigation. Their resources and strategic expertise may shape international legal development, but they raise questions of legitimacy and accountability.

Prof. Stefanie Schmahl (University of Würzburg) emphasised the historical resilience of the human rights system. Despite chronic underfunding and compliance deficits, the treaty bodies have achieved long-term progress and continue to refine international standards. However, their capacity to offer effective responses to contemporary crises is increasingly constrained.

Discussion Summary

The exchange underscored the tension between normative robustness and political vulnerability. Participants noted that:

  • NGOs, though influential, lack democratic accountability.
  • Treaty bodies’ slow historical development contrasts sharply with today’s urgent crises.
  • The system remains legally sound but is struggling to maintain political relevance.

The panel concluded that human rights institutions may survive the current crisis but will emerge transformed, with new actors and altered power dynamics.

 

5. Universal Climate Change Law after the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion

The fifth panel turned to climate governance. Prof. Jelena Bäumler (Leuphana University Lüneburg) offered a detailed analysis of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change, which she described as a significant, though incomplete, contribution to clarifying states’ obligations. Key elements include the recognition of both conduct and result obligations, confirmation of the applicability of state responsibility, and integration of insights from human rights law and the law of the sea.

Bäumler argued, however, that the Court avoided addressing the most transformative issues: planetary boundaries, the question of whether climate protection holds priority over conflicting obligations, and the legal status of cumulative and historical emissions.

Prof. Markus Beham (European University Viadrina) characterised the opinion as a “mixed legacy”. While acknowledging its value, he suggested that it largely restates existing law without fully embracing the normative momentum generated by regional courts and scientific knowledge.

Discussion Summary

The panel inspired one of the workshop’s broadest interdisciplinary debates, touching upon:

  • The feasibility of an “earth and climate turn” in international law.
  • The absence of a clear stance on extraterritorial obligations.
  • The relationship between due diligence and the no-harm principle, especially in cumulative harm scenarios.
  • Potential institutional pathways for coordinating climate action in a fragmented system.

While participants differed on how far the ICJ should have gone, they agreed that global climate governance is entering a period of profound conceptual evolution.

 

6. Institutional Issues: UN Organs between Balance and Imbalance

In the sixth panel, Prof. Niels Blokker (University of Leiden) revisited the Charter’s institutional architecture. Although the UN was designed to allow flexibility, Blokker argued that the current situation has moved beyond the expected level of imbalance. The structural dominance of the P5, entrenched by the veto and the rigidity of Charter amendment procedures, undermines the organisation’s ability to respond to contemporary threats. Historical innovations—such as Uniting for Peace—illustrate the system’s adaptive potential, but cannot replace structural reform.

Prof. Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen) highlighted that, in practice, the General Assembly has often acted as a more reliable guardian of Charter principles than the Security Council, especially when the latter is paralysed by great-power rivalry.

Discussion Summary

Participants explored a wide spectrum of institutional questions, including:

  • The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the expectation of mutual loyalty.
  • The evolving role of the Secretary-General, who must navigate between being “secretary” and “general”.
  • The potential and limitations of E10 coordination, with caution that attempts to circumvent the P5 could provoke institutional backlash.
  • The prospects of incremental reform, as full Charter amendment remains politically unrealistic.
  • The challenge of identifying who acts as the true “guardian of the Charter” under current conditions.

The session underscored the urgent need for institutional renewal—but also the difficulty of achieving it.

 

7. Pressure for Reform and Political Realities

Dr. Marianne Beisheim (SWP Berlin) opened Panel Seven with an overview of recent reform initiatives, including the UN80 process, the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda, and the Pact for the Future. She emphasised that while these documents contain ambitious ideas, they operate in a challenging geopolitical environment marked by rivalry between sovereignty-focused coalitions and advocates of deeper integration.

Beisheim also noted that the traditional roles of the US and China within the organisation are evolving: the US increasingly avoids binding commitments, whereas China seeks to shape the international order from within, often appealing to states of the Global South.

Ambassador (ret.) Dr. Peter Wittig offered a practitioner’s perspective. He cautioned that many Western governments overestimate the ease of returning to a pre-polarisation multilateralism. The UN is now deeply affected by the strategic interests of major powers, and reform opportunities are limited. Nevertheless, he argued that incremental improvements, strengthened EU coordination, and coherent engagement with partners are essential to preserving the organisation’s core functions.

Discussion Summary

The subsequent debate was wide-ranging. Key themes included:

  • The EU’s internal divisions, compounded by rising populism and differing regional priorities.
  • The expanding influence of China, which wields both economic and discursive power.
  • The role of regionalism, viewed by some as a promising complement to global governance and by others as a source of fragmentation.
  • The limited prospects of Security Council reform, contrasted with moderate optimism for targeted procedural or administrative changes.
  • The diminishing space for civil society (“the third UN”) in formal processes, despite significant informal engagement.

The panel concluded that while comprehensive reforms are unlikely, the UN’s future will depend on strategic coalitions, pragmatic adjustments, and renewed commitment to the Charter’s core principles.

 

8. The Continued Relevance of International Law versus Geopolitical Power Politics

In the final panel, Prof. Matthew Craven (SOAS London) questioned the notion that international law progresses linearly. Instead, he suggested that the current moment resembles earlier periods when geopolitical competition overshadowed legal norms. The Charter itself was drafted within a world shaped by colonial legacies and competing ideological interpretations; its ambiguities now resurface as states invoke divergent readings to justify their actions.

Prof. Andreas Paulus (University of Göttingen) stressed that international law cannot function without minimal political consensus. While the norms remain valid, their inconsistent application undermines credibility. Paulus urged a renewed commitment to using the existing fora and applying the law coherently rather than expecting legal rules to compensate for political paralysis.

Discussion Summary

The discussion captured a sense of urgency:

  • Participants highlighted the erosion of basic security norms, citing recent breaches by major powers.
  • The question “Can international law survive authoritarianism and power politics?” informed several interventions.
  • There was broad agreement that abandoning the rules-based order would be dangerous, but also recognition that defending it requires confronting double standards and geopolitical realities.
  • Some questioned whether international law needs defending at all, or whether its resilience lies in its embeddedness across countless domains, from trade to human rights.

The panel ended on a reflective note: even amid geopolitical turbulence, international law remains a crucial—if contested—framework for regulating global affairs.

 

Conclusion

Over two days of intensive debate, the workshop painted a nuanced picture of the UN at 80: an indispensable institution constrained by geopolitical rivalry, financial strain, and unresolved structural issues. Participants agreed that the UN faces a crisis not of legitimacy, but of political commitment and collective vision. Yet the discussions also highlighted enduring strengths: resilient legal frameworks, adaptive institutions, and a global public that still expects the organisation to play a central role.

Rather than signalling a return to “square one”, the anniversary invites a sober reckoning with the UN’s limitations—and a renewed effort to strengthen the multilateral order. The challenges remain daunting, but the workshop made clear that abandoning the organisation is neither realistic nor desirable. The UN’s future will depend on pragmatic reform, creative coalitions, and the willingness of its members to uphold the principles on which it was founded.