UN General Assembly Gains Influence as Security Council Faces Gridlock

The United Nations General Assembly is emerging as a more prominent forum for diplomacy and accountability as divisions within the Security Council limit its ability to respond to major international crises, according to an Al Jazeera opinion article.

The article’s assessment comes as world leaders attend the 81st session of the General Assembly in New York. It argues that the changing balance of global power, along with growing frustration over Security Council deadlock, is increasing the importance of the wider UN membership.

A wider voting base

The General Assembly consists of 193 member states, with each country holding an equal vote. By contrast, the Security Council has five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — whose veto power can prevent council action.

According to the opinion article, the veto system has constrained the Security Council’s response to several international crises. It points to the council’s inability to sanction Israel, condemn the United States’ bombing of Iran or respond effectively to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as examples of the limits created by the current arrangement.

The article presents the General Assembly as an increasingly important venue for small and middle powers, particularly as global politics becomes more multipolar. Global South states have held a numerical majority in the Assembly since 1960 and have used collective formations, including the Afro-Asian bloc and the Group of Seventy-Seven, to shape debates on decolonisation, self-determination, inequality, development and human rights.

Collective action beyond the council

The article cites the Assembly’s historical role in advancing issues that later became part of the UN’s institutional agenda. In one example, Costa Rica led a 1965 proposal to establish the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The position was officially created in 1993.

It also highlights the Assembly’s ability to act when the Security Council is deadlocked. The “Uniting for Peace” mechanism was originally initiated in 1950 during the Korean War. The Assembly used the mechanism during the first weeks of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the opinion article states that it was invoked three times between 2022 and 2023.

Under the mechanism, debate can be moved to the General Assembly when the Security Council cannot reach agreement. The article says the process allows members to make recommendations on measures, including sanctions or the use of force, aimed at restoring peace and security.

A forum for pressure and accountability

The opinion article describes the General Assembly as both a measure of member states’ positions and an indicator of wider global public opinion. It refers to Assembly resolutions concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the obstruction of aid delivery, while also discussing Russia’s war against Ukraine, the United States’ bombing of Iran and the Palestinian people.

It argues that the Assembly’s political value extends beyond the immediate legal effect of its resolutions. Debate in the chamber can expose differences among governments, create pressure on powerful states and give smaller countries a platform in international diplomacy. The article characterises the chamber as “the world’s leading forum for quiet diplomacy” and argues that “politics doesn’t always trump policy.”

The article also discusses the Liechtenstein Initiative, introduced in 2022. It says the initiative requires the General Assembly to meet automatically after one of the five permanent Security Council members uses its veto. The meeting should take place within 10 days, and the state that used the veto must explain and justify its decision to all UN members.

In the article’s view, these developments point to a larger shift in the UN system. As the Security Council remains vulnerable to veto-driven paralysis, the General Assembly is gaining importance as a place where the broader membership can debate crises, hold major powers to account and strengthen the agency of smaller and middle powers.