Rights Group urges UN General Assembly to bypass Council on Gaza
The ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip has thrust the United Nations into yet another dilemma of impasse and urgent action. Amid escalating violence and suffering, an international rights group has urged the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to invoke a historic resolution empowering it to bypass the Security Council, a body traditionally tasked with maintaining international peace and security and authorize the deployment of a peacekeeping force to Gaza.
This situation underscores a recurring challenge in the UN architecture: the paralysis resulting from the veto power wielded by the five permanent Security Council members. The veto often obstructs decisive action, particularly in politically sensitive disputes involving permanent member interests.
The “Uniting for Peace” resolution, adopted by the UNGA in 1950, offers procedural recourse to override such deadlocks, empowering the General Assembly to convene emergency special sessions and recommend collective measures including peacekeeping operations when the Security Council fails to act.
Given the strategic complexity of the Gaza conflict and geopolitical interests influencing Security Council positions exemplified by frequent vetoes blocking resolutions condemning violence or authorizing interventions, the call for the General Assembly to assert this authority signifies both frustration and necessity. It marks a pivotal debate on the balance of power within the UN system and the capacity to respond effectively to grave crises when institutional paralysis prevails.
The “Uniting for Peace” resolution: Legal authority and historical precedents
The “Uniting for Peace” resolution (UNGA Resolution 377 A) was crafted in 1950 as a safeguard against the frequent veto use by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which stymied collective action in the face of aggression. It declares that if the Security Council, due to lack of unanimity among the permanent members, fails to exercise its responsibility to maintain peace, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately to make recommendations for collective measures, including the use of armed force if necessary, to restore international peace and security.
Historically, this resolution empowered the UNGA to convene emergency special sessions and recommend peacekeeping actions during moments of Security Council deadlock, notably during the 1956 Suez Crisis. While UNGA recommendations are not legally binding, the resolution has been interpreted as enabling collective state action with the Assembly’s endorsement, serving as a bypass to inaction caused by veto politics (Wikipedia on Uniting for Peace; Better World Campaign, 2025).
The resolution’s mechanism essentially democratizes UN peace maintenance by involving the broader membership when the Security Council fails to fulfill its primary responsibility. This approach was envisioned as a constitutional safety valve that preserves the integrity of the UN’s collective security system while mitigating the deleterious effects of permanent member divisions.
Contemporary challenges: Political dynamics surrounding Gaza and UN responses
The Gaza Strip’s protracted conflict involves deeply entrenched political and territorial disputes, exacerbated by humanitarian emergencies. The Security Council’s role in authorizing peacekeeping missions or ceasefire enforcement is complicated by the political alignments of its permanent members, particularly the United States, Russia, and China, each possessing veto powers and varying strategic interests in the Middle East.
Recent attempts to pass Security Council resolutions addressing Gaza ceasefires, humanitarian access, or peacekeeping interventions have often been stalled or vetoed, preventing unified UN action. This deadlock amplifies civilian suffering and complicates external efforts to calm hostilities or foster durable solutions.
In this environment, calls for the UN General Assembly to invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution grow louder. Advocates argue that empowering the Assembly to authorize peacekeeping forces would circumvent geopolitical paralysis and enable collective peace enforcement. However, such a move raises significant legal and political questions, notably about the division of UN powers, the binding nature of General Assembly resolutions, and concerns from permanent Security Council members over sovereignty and command authority (United Nations Peacekeeping; Carnegie Endowment, 2024).
There is also the practical challenge of mobilizing willing member states to contribute troops and resources under a General Assembly mandate, given the lack of unanimity and formal command structures often facilitated via Security Council authorization.
Legal implications and the balance of UN powers
The UN Charter assigns primary responsibility for international peace and security to the Security Council (Article 24), but the Charter also provides for residual powers of the General Assembly in circumstances of Security Council inaction. The interplay between these organs reveals a constitutional tension: the Security Council’s veto power can paralyze decision-making, yet the General Assembly representing the wider UN membership is constrained by the non-binding nature of its resolutions.
Legal scholarship indicates that with Security Council vetoes resulting in failure to act, the General Assembly may lawfully convene emergency sessions and make recommendations, including collective measures that might entail peacekeeping or even the use of force. While such authority does not override the Security Council’s role, it introduces a functional check to preserve UN responsiveness. International Court of Justice rulings affirm the validity of General Assembly responsibility in this context, provided the Security Council retains its primacy when operational.
Practically, the General Assembly’s adoption of peace enforcement measures remains political and requires broad member support usually a two-thirds majority which enhances legitimacy but falls short of binding force. Still, when majorities align, they can catalyze coalition actions with or without Security Council backing, as seen in several past peacekeeping episodes.
The decision to invoke Uniting for Peace is thus both a political and a legal lever, contingent on consensus regarding the interpretation of UN powers and the international community’s willingness to act beyond Council paralysis. It also places great responsibility on the Assembly to ensure transparency, clearly defined mandates, and accountability mechanisms to maintain international trust and legality.
The path forward for UN peacekeeping in Gaza
The appeal for the UN General Assembly to step in via the Uniting for Peace resolution signals a critical response to the ongoing governance failure within the Security Council amid the Gaza crisis. While politically sensitive and operationally complex, such a step represents a legitimate mechanism within the UN Charter framework to address situations where vetoes prevent the Security Council from fulfilling its peacekeeping mandate.
For the people of Gaza and the international community, seeking new ways to restore peace demands thoughtful engagement with this procedural avenue. To maximize impact, the Assembly’s intervention must be transparent, inclusive, and supported by a coalition of willing member states prepared to implement peacekeeping operations effectively.
The invocation of such a resolution could mark a precedent in reviving UN collective security functions in increasingly polarized geopolitical contexts. It underscores the necessity of evolving UN mechanisms to remain responsive to global security challenges without becoming hostage to the geopolitical gamesmanship of the Security Council’s permanent members.
Thus, the path forward lies in balancing respect for the Charter’s division of responsibilities with pragmatic solutions that prioritize human security and rights over political stalemate. Advocates and policymakers must navigate these legal and political dimensions with clarity, commitment, and an emphasis on peace, justice, and humanitarian imperatives.
