The UN Charter must be at the heart and soul of any new peace architecture

On 1 September 85 years ago, Adolf Hitler’s German Reich invaded Poland, igniting theSecond World War and unleashing indescribable misery and suffering across Europe and the world. In its aftermath, the UN Charter emerged, carrying the promise of a world order free from war.

Yet, almost simultaneously, humanity developed its most destructive weapon: the nuclear bomb—an invention fundamentally at odds with the ideals the UN Charter sought to uphold. From that moment on, the Charter’s vision was overshadowed by the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Today, as the global order shifts toward multipolarity, the possibility of a world where relations among states are guided by the principles of the UN Charter is growing stronger. Let us not squander this moment in history again. Any new peace architecture should hence have the UN Charter at its heart and in its soul.

The UN Charter versus a World Dominated by Nuclear Weapons

The Charter of the United Nations was an attempt to respond to the two most terrible, destructive, and murderous wars in human history since the Enlightenment. It aimed to develop a concept for a peaceful global order based not on wars, but on shared humanity. While the First and Second World Wars consumed trillions of dollars (in today’s currency) to produce and deploy increasingly sophisticated weapons systems capable of killing millions, the UN Charter consisted of just eighteen pages of paper. Thus, the power of peaceful words stood in stark opposition to the arsenals of war—two profoundly unequal forces. And yet, it is the principles of the UN Charter, not the glorifications of war and military triumph, that represent the true epoch-making achievements of humanity.

When 50 representatives of the victorious Allied nations met in San Francisco in June 1945, they did something profoundly revolutionary. The new world order emerging after the Second World War was no longer to be shaped by a victor’s peace (Siegfrieden), as it had been after the First World War. Instead, a collective security system based on shared principles was to preserve world peace. All nations—regardless of size, political structure, or economic system—would participate. The unifying idea was: Never again war. The UN Charter was not about revenge or retribution, and it made no distinction between just and unjust wars, victors or vanquished. Conflicts between states were to be resolved through negotiation, not military force. The Charter held both sides of a conflict equally responsible for maintaining peace and finding peaceful solutions.

Member states also committed themselves to the equality of all nations, non-interference in the internal affairs of others, adherence to international agreements, cooperation, and mutual tolerance. Traditional notions of preventing war through military balance were set aside. Instead, the Charter placed its emphasis on fundamental human rights, the inviolable dignity of every human being—regardless of origin, gender, or religion—equality between men and women, and the right of all people to social and economic progress.

Yet the UN Charter was challenged almost immediately. Just twenty days after its signing on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco, the first atomic bomb exploded in the desert of New Mexico on 16 July the same year. And before the Charter came into force on 24 October 1945, two atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities on 6 and 9 August 1945 had killed as many as a quarter of a million people—most of them civilians. The ancient belief that military superiority guarantees security was resurrected with a weapon of unprecedented destructive power. Whereas previous wars had caused suffering on a global scale, it was now possible to annihilate the entire human race in a matter of minutes.

Hence, in the aftermath of the two world wars, two radically different approaches to world order had emerged: one based on the newly created UN Charter, and the other on the simultaneously developed most destructive weapon ever known to humankind. One emphasised international cooperation and dialogue; the other relied on the threat of annihilation. With the outbreak of the Cold War, it was nuclear weapons—not the UN Charter—that shaped international relations. The hope for peace through global cooperation was replaced by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

The world settled into a bipolar system of competing visions, with NATO facing the Warsaw Pact and the United States confronting the Soviet Union. Despite the constant fear of nuclear war, this bipolar system proved, in retrospect, relatively stable and predictable. Both sides understood the catastrophic potential of their nuclear arsenals and were unwilling to let political differences escalate into all-out war. While superpower competition led to numerous proxy conflicts, direct war between the two superpowers was never an option.

Brief Détente between Superpowers and the Resurgence of the UN Charter

It may not be all that surprising that, even during the Cold War, the bipolar world began to reduce political tensions and ushered in a period of peaceful coexistence. The rapprochement between the two superpowers began when U.S. President Ronald Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in Reykjavík, Iceland, in October 1986. This meeting marked the beginning of a period of détente, during which numerous arms control and confidence-building measures were signed. These developments quickly led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the lifting of the Iron Curtain, and the reunification of Germany.

One milestone, sadly forgotten today, is the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990), which articulated a shared vision of a Europe where security would be based on cooperation rather than the threat of military force. The spirit of the UN Charter—cooperation and dialogue—came to dominate international relations, replacing the looming threat of nuclear annihilation. For those who take the time to review UN Security Council meetings from that era, it is heartening to read the speeches and mutual reassurances exchanged by political leaders. But this spirit did not last.

It is crucial to remember that when the UN Charter began to shape international relations, the world was still bipolar, dominated by two superpowers. It was the collapse of this bipolar structure and the emergence of a unipolar world that shattered again all hopes for a global order based on the principles of the UN Charter. One of the great tragedies of our time is how short-lived that moment of promise was.

With the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia plunging into chaos, and China remaining largely absent from the global stage, the United States emerged as the sole global superpower, dominating global affairs militarily, economically, technologically, and politically. Almost overnight, the world shifted from bipolarity to unipolarity. No longer preoccupied with containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. became fixated on preserving its global dominance indefinitely.

In 1992, the then-U.S. Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Paul Wolfowitz formulated the new U.S. Defence Planning Guidelines, now known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Its purpose was to maintain U.S. global dominance, stating: “Our first goal is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere… and to enforce this militarily if necessary.” With this the seeds for Ukraine were already planted. Ironically the Ukraine war might turn out to bring about an end to US efforts to perpetuate a unipolar world in which the US would continue to dominate world affairs.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine ushered in a time of a violent world order under a US supremacy in which the UN Charter no longer had a place. The United States now unilaterally decided what was right and wrong, using its military might to enforce its vision of global affairs. Unhindered by any rival power, the U.S. determined the course of peace and war, rendering the UN Security Council increasingly irrelevant.

According to a report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, in the 30 years following the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992–2022), the United States intervened militarily in other countries 251 times. This figure excludes proxy wars—such as the war in Ukraine— and covert regime change operations. These interventions did not lead to a better world, nor did they spread democracy, the rule of law, or economic prosperity. Instead, they resulted in chaos, anarchy, and human suffering. A troubling realisation.

Ironically, the unipolar era saw a greater collapse of international law than the bipolar one. The UN Charter appeared obsolete, and Western powers began to speak only of a “rules-based international order”—an order in which the United States would define the rules.

The UN Charter and the Emergence of a Multipolar World

The unipolar world, in which a single country—the United States—dominates global affairs, was short-lived. We are now entering an era where multiple great powers, and increasingly regional powers, shape international relations. The outcome of this transition remains uncertain, and the contours of a truly multipolar world are still taking form.

The war in Ukraine may offer a glimpse into what lies ahead. It can be seen as a proxy conflict involving the United States, aimed at consolidating its global influence by extending control over Ukraine, Georgia, and the Black Sea region. The eventual outcome—whether a NATO or Russian victory—will likely have profound implications for future geopolitical alignments.

While NATO countries uniformly support Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, it is striking that most non-NATO nations appear to lean toward Russia. This is not necessarily an endorsement of Russia’s military intervention, but rather a reflection of their opposition to NATO’s expansion.

Thus, the emergence of a multipolar world begins with a major war on European soil and a breakdown of international law. This has ushered in a period of global disorder, compounded by the proliferation of increasingly dangerous and destructive weapons systems. In many ways, the risks today surpass those of the Cold War era.

Once the dust settles, world leaders must therefore come together to deliberate on a new global order. This may be the moment when the UN Charter—particularly its collective security framework—should finally be recognized as the foundation for a more peaceful and cooperative world.