{"title":"United Nations Responses to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine","authors":"Alistair D. Edgar","doi":"10.59673/amag.v1i1.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Responses by, and across, the United Nations system to Russian President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 have varied. In the ‘political UN’ of its 193 Member States, Russia’s veto power left the Security Council unable to act, but the majority of UN Member States voted in early March to condemn the invasion as illegal and contrary to the UN Charter. Approximately 30 states, including China and India, chose to abstain and refused to condemn the invasion; and only five states voted in support of Russia. The Assembly also voted in early April to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council, by a narrower margin of 93 in favor, 24 against and 58 abstentions. This essay looks at the range of responses –political, institutional, humanitarian, and other– from the various components of the UN system to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. How, and how well, did those components respond? How and why did these responses evolve as the invasion and war continued? What does the invasion and those responses tell us - if anything - about the willingness and the capacity of ‘the UN system’ to address such a critical issue and its global repercussions?","PeriodicalId":371114,"journal":{"name":"Anuario Mexicano de Asuntos Globales","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anuario Mexicano de Asuntos Globales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59673/amag.v1i1.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Responses by, and across, the United Nations system to Russian President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 have varied. In the ‘political UN’ of its 193 Member States, Russia’s veto power left the Security Council unable to act, but the majority of UN Member States voted in early March to condemn the invasion as illegal and contrary to the UN Charter. Approximately 30 states, including China and India, chose to abstain and refused to condemn the invasion; and only five states voted in support of Russia. The Assembly also voted in early April to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council, by a narrower margin of 93 in favor, 24 against and 58 abstentions. This essay looks at the range of responses –political, institutional, humanitarian, and other– from the various components of the UN system to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. How, and how well, did those components respond? How and why did these responses evolve as the invasion and war continued? What does the invasion and those responses tell us - if anything - about the willingness and the capacity of ‘the UN system’ to address such a critical issue and its global repercussions?
联合国系统对俄罗斯总统普京于2022年2月24日入侵乌克兰的反应各不相同。在由193个成员国组成的“政治联合国”中,俄罗斯的否决权使安理会无法采取行动,但大多数联合国成员国在3月初投票谴责俄罗斯的入侵是非法的,违反了《联合国宪章》。包括中国和印度在内的大约30个国家投了弃权票,拒绝谴责入侵;只有五个国家投票支持俄罗斯。4月初,联合国大会还以93票赞成、24票反对、58票弃权的微弱优势,投票决定暂停俄罗斯在人权理事会(Human Rights Council)的席位。这篇文章着眼于从联合国系统的各个组成部分到俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的一系列反应——政治的、制度的、人道主义的和其他的。这些组件是如何反应的?反应有多好?随着入侵和战争的继续,这些反应是如何演变的?入侵和这些反应告诉我们什么——如果有的话——关于“联合国系统”解决如此关键问题及其全球影响的意愿和能力?