Joining the United Nations is seen as a crucial goal for any territory seeking independence.
But does it really matter?
In this video, I'm going to look at UN membership and show that the question is far more interesting
and complex, and a little less straightforward, to answer that might first appear.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to Independent Thinking.
A channel dedicated to international relations, independence and the origins of countries.
Membership of the United Nations is seen as the key goal for any would-be country.
Around the world, territories vying for independence see joining the UN as their ultimate aspiration.
But is it really so vital?
On the surface, the immediate answer would seem to be an unequivocal 'Yes'.
Delve a little deeper, however, and the picture is a little more nuanced.
In many ways, the real question should be in what ways does UN membership matter?
First of all, we can look at the question in conceptual - if not existential - terms.
Does UN membership matter because it's proof that the particular territory is in fact a state?
On this question, opinion is actually divided.
After all, there are a number of territories that enjoy a greater or lesser degree of international acceptance,
if not widespread recognition, that aren't members of the United Nations.
The four obvious examples are Palestine, Kosovo, the Holy See and Taiwan.
Before going any further, it's important to correct a common mistake.
One often hears references in the media to 'UN recognition' or to a 'UN recognized state'.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as UN recognition.
The United Nations, like any other international organisation, can't formally recognise a state.
Only states can recognise states.
Although the term UN recognition is widely used, it's technically incorrect.
Officially, the terminology should be about UN membership and a UN member states.
Nevertheless, UN membership can be broadly understood to be just one of a set of actions
that constitutes recognition in a broad general sense.
This qualification notwithstanding, there's been a debate in scholarly circles
about the significance of recognition for a state.
Most traditional legal theorists argue that recognition is not a determinant of statehood.
If a territory can meet the requirements for statehood
- defined territory, a settled population, governance and the ability to enter international relations -
then it is a state.
Recognition is important. However it's not a key component of statehood.
Balanced against this, there's a school of thought, most usually led by international relations scholars,
who see recognition as a key component of statehood.
As they see it, you can have the necessary attributes of a state.
However, unless you are accepted as such by other states then you can't really be regarded as a state.
In the context of this debate, UN membership can be seen in two different ways.
In one sense, it's formally meaningless.
Even if a country is not a member of the United Nations, does this mean that it shouldn't be regarded as a state?
After all, the process of UN membership is very clearly influenced by the positions of key countries.
As I showed in another video, any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council
can veto a formal recommendation of membership.
This has been seen in terms of Palestine's 2011 application for membership,
which was blocked by Washington.
Likewise, Kosovo's hopes of joining a UN are blocked by Russia and China.
In contrast, the other school of thought sees UN membership as incredibly important
at a conceptual level.
It's a powerful message that the state has 'made it'.
After all, joining UN means the state has been formally recommended by the Security Council
and has obtained the positive support of at least two-thirds of the wider membership.
UN membership, in this sense, it is the clearest signal that the state is regarded as a sovereign equal
by the international community of states.
Still, as important as it is, the idea that UN membership can be seen as the ultimate proof
of a state's existence is incorrect.
While legal scholars would say UN membership can't possibly make a territory a country,
even many international relations scholars and policymakers would acknowledge that there are
countries their country recognizes as a state, but which cannot join the UN due to
overtly political objections from others.
In this sense, UN membership is a crucial sign of acceptance.
However, it cannot be seen as proof that a territory is a state.
The second question is:
Does UN membership matter because it makes a state a part of the international community?
Here the answer is far more straightforward - although still not entirely clear cut.
One of the best descriptions of UN membership I ever heard referred to it as
the process of 'hooking up to the hidden wiring of the international system'.
This is so true.
A long time ago, states essentially existed as self-contained entities.
This is no longer the case.
In the modern world, where there is such complex interdependence, there are multitude of different ways
that they need to be able to interact with one another.
The United Nations provides one of the most effective ways to manage a lot of these interactions.
It provides umbrella for a multitude of different bodies and agencies that can facilitate international cooperation.
The 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations system include the World Bank Group,
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO),
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Being able to access and participate in these bodies can be vitally important.
For this reason, it would seem obvious that UN membership matters enormously.
However, while joining these bodies is undoubtedly important,
it's not always formally dependent on membership of the organization as a whole.
Many of these bodies have their own separate rules on membership.
This means that countries can sometimes join, even if they aren't full UN members.
For example, the weighted voting used in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group,
meant the economically powerful Western countries, including the United States, Germany and Japan,
were able to secure membership for Kosovo in 2009.
Meanwhile, the majority system used in the UN Educational Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
saw Palestine join, despite strong objections from Washington.
On top of this, while full UN membership is certainly an important goal, it's not strictly an either-or proposition.
There is in fact a sort of halfway house in the form of countries classed as 'non-member states'.
Although this status is not in the Charter of the UN, it can be awarded by the UN General Assembly.
Most importantly, it doesn't require Security Council recommendation - as full membership does.
Therefore, while it's not full membership, some countries choose to become a non-member state as it clearly
denotes that the observer is actually regarded by the majority of UN members as a state.
At present, Palestine and the Holy See are Non-Member States.
However, interestingly, Kosovo has shown little desire to pursue this route.
Ultimately, the question of whether UN membership really matters is actually rather more interesting
and complex than it might first appear.
On the question of statehood, UN membership is an incredibly important symbol of acceptance.
It does mean that a state has made it and is a full part of the international system.
However, not being a UN member does not mean that the territory isn't a state.
Again, there are territories that are widely accepted as states informally, if not officially, that are not members
of the United Nations merely because of the political whims of just one member of the Security Council.
In many ways, therefore, recognition by individual UN members is often far more important.
Where UN membership really matters is in terms of connecting to the wider international community
in a number of practical ways.
Joining the UN means that the state is fully able to participate in a wide variety
of global bodies and organizations.
And yet, even here, the picture might not be as straightforward as it seems.
Not being a UN member does not mean that the country can't be a member of certain agencies
- sometimes rather important ones.
We can see examples of situations where a country is able to join parts of the United Nations
while being denied access to the Organization as a whole.
So, of course UN membership matters.
It matters enormously.
However, the reasons why it matters, and the limitations imposed by not being a member,
are perhaps not as obvious or as clear-cut as they might at first seem.
Thanks so much for watching.
I hope you found it really useful. If so I posted some other videos that you might enjoy.
And please consider subscribing for more content like this.
I post new videos every Friday.
Thanks so much for watching. And see you again next time.
[MUSIC]