How successful has the UN Security council been in stopping military confrontations?

Question

there have been many military conflicts since the UN has been formed...like the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam war, the six day war between Israel and its neighbours...Russian invasion of Afghanistan...Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan...should the UN security council have taken any definite stand on these issues ?Has the Security council been a success or a failure?

Answer 1

The Security Council handles disputes under different chapters of the Charter. In the case of peacekeeping (Chapter Six) they need the agreement of both parties to place troops between the opposing forces. In the case of peace enforcement, they can insert troops and give the commander the authority to take all steps necessary to restore the state of things before hostilities broke out.
The problem comes with the details. There is a Military Staff Committee that's supposed to act like the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. And that committee is supposed to be composed of the chiefs of the general military staff of the "Big Five" from World War Two (U.S., Great Britain, France, USSR and China). During the Cold War, two of those nations were potential enemies themselves and one was not recognized by the U.S. So, very junior officers filled the bill, with little support from their central governments. In addition, each of those five member states has the veto power on any Security Council Resolution. So, the Council was blunted in dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Adoption of the resolution concerning the Korean conflict was only made possible because the Soviet delegation boycotted the proceedings, rather than veto the resolution. In addition, the Charter requires member states to place armed forces at the disposal of the UN for Chapter Six and Chapter Seven operations. One of the first to do so (and one of the few to do so) was the U.S. in the passage of the UN Support Act in 1947.
I think the UN has done a good job with peace enforcement operations involving the dispatch and insertion of troops. In Korea, they did restore the state of things before Jue 25, 1950. In 1991, they did the same with respect to correcting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
They get a low grade on Chapter Six operations. To help in that regard, an amendment to the Charter is needed. It would state that anytime a peace keeper is attacked after being dispatched under Chapter Six, then the entire military mission is "ramped up" to Chapter Seven peace enforcement.

Answer 2

The UN seems to not want to stop wars. It'll watch, send peacekeepers to be targets, and write letters of condemnation, but not stop a war. I always felt that the UN should have more power if it wants to be a "World Government", but it turned out to be a forum to talk, talk, and talk some more. Evidently really doing something must be against the rules. But then the issue of the sovereignty of the member nations comes up. And it doesn't want to interfere with "internal matters" and then lots of people die.
Now if another member goes off on it's own to take down a dictator, THEN it wants to step in and run things (and actually fights for this). And then complain about the member that goes off and does things on it's own.

Answer 3

There is a lot of conflicts you did not tell about it but anyway when you fail it might be because of your foot, hand, eyes, ears or head and the failure of the G.C is because of the 5th countries US, UK, FR, Ch and R.

Answer 4

The US formed the UN. I think.

Answer 5

let us not forget the Korea police action. which technically has still not ended.