The United Nations in Multipolar Security Governance

Veto Politics, Norm Contestation, and Regional Substitution

Abstract

This paper critically reassesses the role of the United Nations (UN) in international security governance amid the ongoing transition from a unipolar to a multipolar global order. As power becomes increasingly dispersed and strategic competition intensifies, multilateral institutions face mounting challenges related to effectiveness, legitimacy, and operational relevance. Using the UN as a case study, the article examines how structural rigidity, paralysis in decision-making within the Security Council, and contested interpretations of international law constrain the organisation’s capacity to respond to contemporary security crises. The study employs a qualitative case-based approach, focusing on the Black Sea region as a strategic space where great-power rivalry, regional instability, and hybrid threats intersect. Analysing UN engagement in the conflicts in Ukraine, Georgia, and the former Yugoslavia, the article identifies recurring patterns of veto-induced inaction, normative fragmentation, and limited crisis-management capacity, alongside an increasing reliance on regional and ad hoc security arrangements. The analysis argues that while the UN remains an indispensable forum for diplomatic engagement and normative coordination, its continued relevance in global security governance depends on pragmatic institutional adaptation. For defence and security policymakers, the findings highlight the importance of complementing UN-based multilateralism with flexible regional mechanisms in security environments shaped by multipolar rivalry and hybrid conflict dynamics.