Why the world fails to stop wars?

Despite decades of diplomacy, lofty ideas, wars and armed conflicts continue to rage across the world. From the streets of Gaza to the plains of Ukraine, from the parched lands of Sudan to the tense jungles along the Thai-Cambodian border, peace often seems like a mirage. The global system built to uphold order, the United Nations, international treaties, conventions, and international courts, appears increasingly unable to stop the spread of violence. The crisis is not just one of conflict but of confidence in the very idea of collective global responsibility that we together have failed to respect.

The laws exist. Countries sign and ratify treaties, talk about high values of peace, but when the time comes for implementation, agreements are ignored. The founding principles of the United Nations, enshrined in its Charter in 1945, promised to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, where humanity had suffered. Yet, 80 years later, the mechanisms to prevent war seem to be faltering, if not failing. International law, whether in the form of humanitarian treaties like the Geneva Conventions or political frameworks like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), is often either violated or selectively enforced. Violators are hardly punished.

Let us take the example of visible continuing conflicts, the Ukraine-Russia war, which began in 2022, is still ongoing. The war has dragged on for over three years. Thousands of military personnel and civilians have died, millions have fled both countries, and cities have been destroyed. Several rounds of dialogue took place, people won elections on name of bringing ceasefire or peace, and yet no meaningful results. Despite global condemnation, sanctions, and UN resolutions, the conflict continues. Even at one stage, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants, but they have proven to be of no use. A stark reminder of the limited reach of global legal instruments.

Similarly, the situation in Gaza is equally illustrative. The Rome Statute outlaws the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Customary international law forbids collective punishment. Civilians and medical personnel, as well as their properties, should not be targeted, according to the Geneva Convention. All of these are being breached in Gaza, where nearly 90% of the population is either displaced or trapped and living in “evacuation zones” with no food, water, or medicine.

Hospitals are barely functioning. Children are dying of malnutrition before the eyes of their parents, helpless doctors, medics who equally suffer. Yet the institutions designed to uphold international law, the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court, and the Human Rights Council have so far failed to act decisively. Why? Despite repeated calls for humanitarian access and protection of civilians, the region remains mired in violence, blockade, and humanitarian catastrophe. Those who brought news to us from ground zero are also not spared and are suffering. Global news agencies, including BBC, AFP, AP, and Reuters, warned that journalists in Gaza are now facing starvation, reporting under conditions that mirror those they are covering. And while aid agencies raise alarms of famine and international outrage brews, decisive global action remains absent.

Let us also take another example of forgotten conflicts. Sudan, which has been engulfed in a brutal internal war between rival military factions for over a year. The humanitarian toll is staggering. Yet again, the global response has been limited to statements of concern, some sanctions, and a minimal peacekeeping presence.

And now, fresh tensions are flaring up in Southeast Asia. Just early this week, clashes between Thai and Cambodian border forces were reported, where some dozens of civilians were killed over disputed borders, reviving memories of past hostilities. Such regional flare-ups have the potential to escalate quickly in the absence of effective diplomatic mechanisms.

The answer lies partly in the growing gap between principle and power. The multilateral order, established decades ago, was designed in a different era and features credible institutions, such as the UN, the International Court of Justice, and the World Trade Organisation, with a consensus on the need for global cooperation. But today, that consensus is tattering. The Security Council, which still holds the ultimate authority to act on global security matters, is paralysed by veto politics as permanent members, such as the United States, Russia, China, France, or the United Kingdom, disagree, and hence gridlock ensues. This has rendered the body ineffective in addressing major crises, like Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Gaza. Moreover, many countries now treat international law as optional, something to invoke when convenient, and ignore when inconvenient.

The proliferation of regional conflicts, from Ethiopia to the Caucasus, has shown how easily international norms can be overridden by national interest. This crisis of multilateralism is compounded by geopolitical competition at the cost of humanity. Strategic rivalries between major powers are increasingly spilling over into conflict zones, sometimes in the form of direct support to opposing factions, at other times through economic leverage or cyber warfare. These dynamics make diplomatic consensus harder to achieve and peace more difficult to broker.

Part of the issue also lies in the way the international community prioritises conflicts. We have seen that some of the conflicts and wars, like Ukraine, attract headlines and high-level summits. Others, like Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo, barely register beyond the humanitarian aid community. This selectivity often reflects geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian need. Even in humanitarian response, inequality is glaring. In Gaza, journalists have warned that they are now “starving alongside the people they are covering.” More than 100 aid organisations have warned of “mass starvation,” but appeals for unhindered aid access have so far gone largely unmet except an exceptional trickle of aid where foreign journalists are barred from entering. Such double standards weaken the credibility of global institutions. If the international community is perceived as partial or driven by self-interest, its calls for peace carry less weight. Even alternative regional organisations often lack the teeth to manage conflict effectively. Take the example of ASEAN, seen as a strong regional multilateral organisation that continues to meet regularly and even has rotating leadership. When it comes to resolving deep-rooted territorial disputes or addressing human rights violations in Myanmar, ASEAN has struggled to exert meaningful influence.

While the situation may appear bleak, it is not beyond repair. A few practical and political steps can begin to restore faith in international law and multilateralism.

Reform the UN Security Council: There is broad agreement that the current structure of the Security Council, especially the veto power of the five permanent members, no longer reflects global realities. The UN needs to expand its membership and reconsider the use of veto privileges, or at least limit their use in humanitarian crises, to enhance its credibility and responsiveness.

Strengthen International Law Enforcement: International courts and tribunals must be empowered with enforcement mechanisms, including stronger mandates for cooperation. States that defy rulings should face automatic sanctions coordinated across jurisdictions, more so when autonomous weapons are being used in the conflict.

Invest in Preventive Diplomacy: More attention must be given to preventing conflicts before they escalate. This requires early warning systems, conflict mediation capacities, and neutral platforms for dialogue, especially in volatile regions.

Equal Attention to all Conflicts: Media, governments, aid agencies must resist the temptation to focus only on “high-profile” conflicts. Whether in Gaza, Ukraine, or Sudan, every life deserves equal protection, and every crisis deserves global attention.

Rebuild Trust through Neutrality and Consistency: Global institutions must act and be perceived as acting impartially. This means avoiding politicised resolutions, applying standards consistently, and making room for voices from the Global South in decision-making.

Economic Diplomacy: While geopolitics has failed to deliver peace, economic diplomacy continues to show some hope. Trade ties across the borders, stimulate innovation, and strengthen business confidence between neighbouring countries. Such economic partnerships, grounded in mutual benefit and long-term cooperation, may offer a template for future global engagements. When nations invest in shared prosperity, chances are they are less likely to drift into confrontation.

International law is only as strong as the collective will to uphold it. The crises in several countries show that without meaningful reform and genuine commitment, the institutions designed to preserve peace risk becoming irrelevant. It is time to see multilateralism evolving, it is a necessity for the future when we are more interactive, collaborative and are much better linked. For in a world more interconnected than ever, war in one region is not a distant tragedy. It is a shared failure.

Surinder Singh Oberoi,

National Editor Greater Kashmir