The San Francisco Conference, 25 April-26 June 1945. Meeting of Commission III, Security Council, Committee 2, Peaceful Settlement. UN Photo/Lundquist.

Far from being consigned to the archives of the 20th century, it should be recognised that the UN Charter is more relevant today than at any time in its previous eight decades.

In its 80th year, the Charter of the United Nations (the UN Charter) remains the world’s most important secular document. It affirms the universal principles of human character and conduct that every nation has confirmed by signing this international treaty, albeit often honoured in the breach. Like it or not, nations and their peoples are governed by the Charter, which is grounded in history’s lessons and expressive of the ‘forever law’ that, at least in theory, guides global society.

Most of the existential challenges now dominating the global agenda – climate crisis, wars of aggression, pandemics, mass migration, authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, disinformation and artificial intelligence (AI) – may appear disconnected from the Charter’s words that were drafted during the final year of the Second World War. But one would be mistaken to relegate the Charter to the archives of the 20th century. Indeed, the Charter means more to the fate of the world today than at any other time during the past 80 years.

Abundant historical evidence of shortcomings and failures at the UN informs critics of the Charter because its aspirational language has been challenged by the darker forces of human nature and power since the Second World War. Battle-scarred and at times seeming to survive on life support, the Charter nonetheless remains a vibrant document of hope and vision that no nation or people should abandon. In contrast to the Charter’s origins during the Second World War, today a more complex constellation of powers competes for influence while existential challenges dominate the global agenda. We need to rediscover the Charter and explore pragmatic modern interpretations of its words to help nations and peoples navigate the highly uncertain terrain ahead.

The Charter of the future is unlikely to include modernising amendments approved by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly which is then ratified nationally by two thirds of the UN members. The political obstacles in today’s highly fractured multipolar world make efforts to amend the Charter exceptionally challenging. Despite decades of diplomacy, there remains scant hope of expanding the composition of the Security Council to be more representative of a multipolar world. Faced with such impediments to change, the Charter should be adapted as a freshly interpreted document that is both faithful to the Founders’ original intent and tailored to modern realities.

The five pillars of humankind amplified by the Charter – human rights and fundamental freedoms, international law, economic and social progress, international peace and security, and peacemaking – remain unchanged, but our understanding of them requires a refresher course on the existing text.

International peace and security

The key provisions on international peace and security in the Charter deliver the mandate that the UN can use to tame the beast of hostilities. Article 2(4) remains the Charter’s most prominent rule: ‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ But these words require a modern understanding of ‘force’ in international affairs. Whereas this guiding ‘Principle’ of the Charter was originally viewed through the prism of the clash of vast armies during the Second World War, the meaning of ‘force’ is now multi-dimensional. The ‘threat or use of force’ can encompass cyberwarfare, disinformation, human-induced ecological catastrophes, viral outbreaks, energy blackouts, financial manipulations, space-based disrupters and waves of migrants shoved onto the sovereign territories of other countries. To appreciate its full relevance, national leaders need to broaden their understanding of the prohibition on ‘the threat or use of force’ in Article 2(4) to include the full range of actions that can violate the peace.

Perhaps the most significant interpretive puzzle of the Charter is Article 2(7), which prohibits the UN from intervening in ‘matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’. A modern interpretation of those words would consider the shrinking parameters of what truly constitutes internal affairs. The transborder realities of international trade, environmental phenomena, social media, human rights violations, expanding telecommunications, cyberattacks, irregular warfare, migrations, epidemics, pandemics and educational and cultural exchanges and events do not occupy the exclusive domain of internal affairs – and they point to a turbulent and risky future. A government’s reliance on Article 2(7) to keep the UN, and as such its agencies and member states, at arm’s length is losing its relevance as global phenomena swamp people’s lives and the economies, cultures and ecology of nations.

Chapter VII (Articles 39–51) of the Charter retains powerful meaning and potential to utilise non-military and military responses to threats to international peace and security. Article 39 recites the fundamental tenet: ‘The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.’

How such events are interpreted requires a pragmatic understanding of actions as they unfold under complex modern circumstances, where innovative technological advancements in weaponry can instantly imperil a nation’s security and where one leader’s view of national destiny can unleash massive cross-border aggression. Article 39 is open to unlimited challenges of interpretation that require keen appreciation of how science, technology, disinformation and unchecked authoritarianism can disrupt the peace and launch highly destructive acts of aggression.

Still lacking is the full-scale implementation of all articles of Chapter VII, which would occur if and when sufficient political will can be achieved by the permanent Council members. That prospect awaits the shift, perhaps over generations, from authoritarianism to constitutional democracies among each of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia, the UK and the US – or whatever new composition of powers an enlarged Security Council may someday require.

Article 51 of Chapter VII, which upholds ‘the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations’ requires modern interpretation. The meaning of ‘inherent right’ and ‘an armed attack’ has evolved along with customary international law and the practice of the Security Council over the years to rise to the challenge of meeting the threat to a nation and its people, as contemplated by Article 51. The very nature of warfare, particularly the technology of weaponry and use of cyberspace, keeps moving the goalposts of what triggers the Security Council’s attention beyond the more conventional acts of warfare envisioned in 1945.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms

Human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion are foundational tenets of the Charter. Without these principles that evoke equality and the values of each person’s life and wellbeing, the Charter would be little more than an aging document of security pledges to preserve the sovereignty of nations. The Charter spawned an impressive amount of codification and institutionalisation of a fresh human rights agenda in the 20th century, with a momentum that has prevailed far into the 21st century without any real prospect of slowing down in the face of many challenges.

The Charter makes clear that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be honoured as universal and all-inclusive for peoples globally. There should be no pockets of denial of such rights and freedoms because of historical, autocratic or even cultural barriers erected by those who fear the power of the principles at stake. Arguments to carve out exceptions should be seen for what they are: tactics to prevent the full realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in order to preserve the political dominance of a ruler or a particular group. Of course, individuals may freely exercise their choice to fully or partially eschew the protection of such rights and freedoms for the sake of their cultural values, but the opening premise of the Charter’s emphasis on human rights and fundamental freedoms should be seen as a clarion call for universal compliance.

The Charter needs to expand its reach in the field of human rights by becoming a beacon not only for individual rights, but also for collective human rights that focus on benefitting minority and indigenous groups – and indeed humanity as a whole. That is natural territory for the Charter, born from the Second World War’s assault on the collective rights of the global population. In an age of survival from existential threats, which now defines the plight of humankind, the collective rights of peoples are often the primary human rights challenge. These threats include environmental catastrophes, global pandemics, mass atrocity crimes, disinformation, misguided AI and increased risks of nuclear Armageddon. Each gives rise to human rights challenges for the collective group of people most directly impacted.

Respect international law

The UN Charter is the cornerstone of modern international law. Its words and the many multilateral treaties inspired by it have created a rich body of international law, initiated under UN auspices and offering a global list of obligations nations breach, or ignore, at their peril.

The evolution of international law and how and when it should be enforced, particularly by UN bodies, will increasingly be influenced by the nations and voices of the Global South. International law is no longer dominated by the West. The International Court of Justice, a signature component of the Charter and judicial core of the UN, is also shaping the content of international law as its jurisprudence increases steadily with contentious inter-state cases and UN-generated advisory opinions. Innovative ways to ensure state compliance with the rulings of the International Court of Justice should be explored, including the creation of a UN task force that, for example, could collaborate with regional organisations to monitor and seek compliance with the Court’s rulings. A UN body should be tasked with surveying member states’ overall compliance with the Charter and international law and issue periodic reports.

Economic and social progress

The UN is not a vast commercial enterprise or governing body responsible for guaranteeing the world’s economic prosperity or social wellbeing among the countless cultures and peoples spanning the globe. But the guiding principles of economic and social co-operation are deeply embedded in the Charter’s language. The specialist agencies authorised by Article 57 and guided under Article 63 are pursuing economic development and investment, agricultural, humanitarian, educational, health, maritime and telecommunications priorities among nations. They act under the umbrella of the Charter and their own constitutional mandates.

Enable the peacemakers

In an ideal world, the peaceful settlement of disputes would be the singular methodology described in the Charter for the achievement of world peace. That is not the real world, past or present. Nonetheless, the Charter encourages a robust effort at waging peace and avoiding armed conflicts under various Charter authorities vested with the General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the UN Secretary-General.

The Charter clearly favours regional means and solutions relating to international peace and security and to forging a peaceful settlement of local disputes. Articles 52 and 53 provide the platform for those priorities but also recognise the Security Council’s primacy of enforcement action under the Charter. While this authority has been occasionally invoked by the Council during its 80-year history, there are ample opportunities in modern times to activate these provisions to stimulate regional options more robustly.

The Secretary-General’s power under Article 99 of the Charter to bring to the attention of the Security Council ‘any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security’ could prove to be an unpopular initiative by at least some Council members, but there may be no other credible choice. Exercising Article 99 authority is like thrusting a cattle prod at the Security Council, and it should be exercised more often to energise Council members and other nations to react more effectively to international crises.

The UN Charter is a vibrant document despite often being ignored or subjected to sceptical and limiting interpretations. Many of the expectations and procedures that underpinned the Charter in 1945 have not been met, but the principles in the document remain undefeated. Tripwires for calamities unimagined in the aftermath of a catastrophic world war now endanger nations and peoples globally. Despite some outdated provisions and fragility in a multipolar world of stubborn ideologies and nationalist power grabs, the Charter retains essential principles of global cooperation and engagement we cannot afford to abandon. ‘The future' is still etched across the global constitution we call the Charter.

David Scheffer and Mark Ellis are the authors of The UN Charter: Five Pillars for Humankind, a new book that takes a fresh look at the text and its relevance for the modern world.