Daily Editorial Analysis 24 October 2025

The UN Matters, As a Symbol of Possibility 

Context

• Eighty years after its founding, the United Nations (UN) stands as both a monument to human aspiration and a mirror reflecting the world’s contradictions.
• Conceived in the aftermath of the Second World War, it was envisioned not as a symbol of victory but as a safeguard against humanity’s worst instincts, a mechanism for peace, justice, and cooperation.
• Through reflection, personal testimony, and political critique, the UN remains indispensable in an increasingly fragmented world.

A Historical Reflection and The Erosion of Consensus

• A Historical Reflection: From Tragedy to Transformation

  • The UN’s creation was born of tragedy rather than triumph, a theme that sets a tone of sober realism.
  • The contrast between failure and success, Rwanda and Srebrenica on one side, East Timor and Namibia on the other, captures the UN’s dual nature as both flawed and essential.
  • Its legitimacy lies not in perfection but in persistence.

• The Erosion of Consensus: A Changing Global Order

  • The world for which the UN was created no longer exists.
  • The bipolar order of 1945 gave way to American dominance and now to a fragmented, multipolar landscape.
  • This diffusion of power has weakened the post-war consensus and strained the institutions built to preserve it.
  • Nationalism, once a force for liberation, increasingly challenges multilateralism, while populist distrust erodes faith in collective decision-making.
  • Within this fractured environment, the UN’s founding principles, sovereign equality, peaceful resolution of disputes, and collective security, appear both vital and vulnerable.
  • The Security Council, frozen in the power dynamics of 1945, no longer reflects present realities.
  • Reform is not merely desirable but necessary if the UN is to retain legitimacy and function effectively.

The Question of Representation: India and the Security Council

• India’s exclusion from permanent membership in the Security Council illustrates the deep structural inequities of the current system.
• As the world’s most populous nation, its largest democracy, a significant peacekeeping contributor, and a growing economic force, India embodies the values of the UN Charter.
• Yet its absence from the Council’s permanent ranks remains a glaring anomaly.
• Such exclusion weakens both the moral and operational credibility of the Council.
• India’s demand for inclusion transcends the pursuit of power; it represents a call for fairness and equity in global governance.
• A system that continues to privilege outdated hierarchies risks irrelevance and alienation among the very nations it claims to serve.

India’s Strategic Autonomy and the Call for Reform

• India’s long-standing commitment to sovereignty and strategic autonomy aligns with the broader critique of global governance.
• Its foreign policy avoids entanglement in great-power rivalries while promoting regional stability and multipolar dialogue.
• This approach reflects a vision of global order founded on dignity rather than dominance, one where cooperation is not dictated by hierarchy but shaped by shared values.
• Reform of the Security Council, therefore, must move beyond power redistribution to embrace representation and principle.
• A pluralistic world requires plural voices. Institutions that fail to recognize this will struggle to command trust or moral authority.

The Path Forward: Reform, Agility, and Moral Courage

• For the UN to thrive in the 21st century, it must become more representative, agile, and ethically grounded.
• Reforming the Security Council is the first step toward restoring legitimacy, but structural change alone is insufficient.
• The organisation must adapt to crises that move faster than traditional diplomacy, through digital modernization, streamlined decision-making, and empowered field operations.
• Equally crucial is the reclamation of moral authority. In an age of disinformation and division, the UN’s ability to speak truth to power depends on courage and consistency.
• Yet this moral voice cannot stand without political and financial commitment from member states.
• Chronic underfunding and the politicisation of contributions undermine the UN’s capacity to act, revealing a troubling irony: the institution most needed to manage global crises is being weakened by those with the greatest capacity to sustain it.

Conclusion

• The United Nations at eighty is neither relic nor panacea; It is an unfinished project, a reflection of humanity’s contradictions and hopes.
• Its failures are real, from bureaucratic inertia to geopolitical paralysis, yet its achievements remain profound.
• To dismiss it would be to surrender the belief that humanity can govern itself through cooperation rather than coercion.
• As Dag Hammarskjöld observed, the UN was created not to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.

The UN Matters, As a Symbol of Possibility FAQs

 Q1. Why was the United Nations founded after World War II?
Ans. The United Nations was founded to prevent future conflicts, promote human dignity, and uphold peace through international cooperation.

Q2. What major change in world politics challenges the UN’s effectiveness today?
Ans. The shift from a bipolar to a multipolar world has made global consensus harder to achieve, weakening the UN’s influence.

Q3. Why does the analysis describe India’s exclusion from the Security Council as an anomaly?
Ans. Because India’s size, democracy, and contributions to peacekeeping make its exclusion inconsistent with the UN’s principles of fairness and representation.

Q4. In what ways does the UN remain significant despite its flaws?
Ans. The UN continues to save lives through humanitarian work and shapes global norms on human rights and sustainable development.

Q5. What reforms are suggested to strengthen the UN for the future?
Ans. The analysis calls for Security Council reform, greater agility in crisis response, and renewed moral and financial commitment from member states.

Source: The Hindu

Immunity of International Organisations is No Free Pass

Context

• International cooperation among states has led to the proliferation of intergovernmental organisations (IOs) tasked with administering treaties, promoting development, and managing global or regional issues.
• These entities, such as the United Nations (UN) or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), occupy a central position in global governance.
• Yet, their increasing influence has raised a complex legal question: to what extent are IOs subject to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts of the host state, and when should they be immune?
• This issue, though often overlooked, is of particular importance for countries like India, which host several international organisations within their territories.

The Basis of IO Immunity

• The immunity of IOs is not uniform but rather determined by the interplay of three key legal instruments: the founding treaty of the organisation, the headquarters agreement between the IO and the host state, and any relevant domestic legislation.
• The theoretical justification for such immunity is grounded in the doctrine of functional necessity.
• According to this principle, immunity is essential for IOs to perform their functions effectively and without undue interference from national jurisdictions.
• However, as legal scholars such as Jan Klabbers argue, the functional necessity thesis is not without its challenges.
• While immunity is intended to protect organisational independence, it can also shield IOs from accountability when they act arbitrarily or in violation of individual rights.
• This tension between functionality and justice lies at the heart of the modern debate on IO immunity.

Judicial Practice and Emerging Trends

• Courts around the world have frequently grappled with the question of IO immunity, particularly in employment disputes between staff members and their organisations.
• Traditionally, national courts have upheld IO immunity, emphasizing the need to preserve institutional autonomy.
• Yet, this position has evolved. Increasingly, courts now assess the human rights impact of their immunity decisions, a shift highlighted by international lawyer August Reinisch.
• The turning point lies in whether denying a domestic court’s jurisdiction leaves the aggrieved individual without any remedy.
• If immunity results in a denial of justice, courts have begun to reconsider its applicatio
• This marks a significant shift from a purely functionalist approach toward one grounded in access to justice and human rights protection.

The Role of Alternative Remedies

• A consistent theme in comparative jurisprudence is that IO immunity is contingent upon the availability of adequate alternative remedies.
• If an organisation provides an independent and impartial mechanism for dispute resolution, such as an administrative tribunal or arbitration, the domestic court should, in principle, respect its immunity.
• However, the mere theoretical existence of such a mechanism is insufficient.
• The Italian Supreme Court’s decision in Drago v. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute exemplifies this standard: only an independent and impartial judicial remedy qualifies as a valid alternative.
• Similarly, the Belgian court in Siedler v. Western European Union rejected an IO’s immunity where the alternative forum did not guarantee a fair trial.
• Likewise, the French case of Banque Africaine de Développement v. Degboe demonstrated that immunity cannot be upheld if the IO establishes an alternative remedy after the fact or one inaccessible to the complainant.
• These cases collectively underline a growing international consensus: IOs must ensure that their internal dispute mechanisms are not merely nominal but substantively just, accessible, and effective.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Alternative Mechanisms

• Determining whether an IO’s alternative mechanism is effective requires examining several practical considerations. Key questions include:
• Has the IO established a clear and functional arbitration process for employment disputes?
• Does it maintain a panel of independent and impartial arbitrators?
• Has it affiliated with any recognised arbitral institution or adopted credible procedural rules?
• Crucially, has the organisation waived its immunity with respect to the supervisory role of domestic courts in such arbitrations?
• If these safeguards are absent, arbitration, or any other internal process, cannot be considered a genuine alternative.
• In such cases, the IO’s invocation of immunity risks becoming a tool of impunity rather than a mechanism of functionality.

Conclusion

• The immunity of international organisations remains a cornerstone of international institutional law, protecting their independence and enabling them to function across borders.
• Yet, this immunity cannot be absolute; as judicial practice increasingly reflects, immunity must be balanced with accountability.
• IOs cannot operate in a legal vacuum that denies justice to individuals affected by their actions.
• The emerging global trend toward conditional immunity, based on the adequacy of alternative remedies, represents a crucial step in reconciling the principles of international functionality with those of fairness and human rights.

Immunity of International Organisations is No Free Pass FAQs

 Q1. What is the main purpose of granting immunity to international organisations (IOs)?
Ans. The main purpose of granting immunity to IOs is to ensure they can perform their functions independently and without interference from domestic courts.

Q2. Why has the functional necessity principle been criticised?
Ans. It has been criticised because it can allow IOs to escape accountability even when they act arbitrarily or violate individual rights.

Q3. How have national courts’ approaches to IO immunity changed in recent years?
Ans. National courts have begun considering the human rights impact of their decisions and now assess whether denying jurisdiction would leave individuals without remedies.

Q4. When can domestic courts uphold an IO’s claim of immunity in employment disputes?
Ans. Domestic courts can uphold an IO’s immunity if the organisation provides an independent, impartial, and effective alternative mechanism for dispute resolution.

Q5. What is the key principle guiding modern interpretations of IO immunity?
Ans. The key principle is that immunity must be balanced with accountability to prevent injustice while protecting organisational functionality.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›