Uniting for Peace Resolution: Is it relevant today?

The Charter of the United Nations was designed to strictly prohibit the use of force between states and allow it only in minimal situations. The fear of repeating the scourge of WWII urged the superpowers to accord the license for military intervention exclusively to a particular entity, namely the Security Council. They granted themselves sweeping prerogatives, one of which is the authority to cast a veto. However, it was not expected, or at least unprepared for, that superpowers can use this veto against themselves. A situation that would inevitably lead to looking for alternatives to legalize military actions outside the ambits of the Council. Among these alternatives was the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Even though this resolution was created during an era where the international community did not lend much importance to domestic gross human rights violations, it might still serve as a legitimizing tool to challenge today’s compelling demands. But does it have enough legal cover to justify an act, which will otherwise be classified as aggression? If the answer is positive, has it been sought for other than for the purpose of its creation? If negative, what was the alternative when a situation demanding action was deadlocked in the Council? The article will try to seek answers to these questions.