The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 takes place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By Abby Si Xinyi, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
This session, titled “The Role of the United Nations in Global Affairs Today”, examined whether the United Nations (“UN”) remains fit for purpose in the current dynamics of world affairs, and if not, what reforms are needed to strengthen its contribution to the geopolitical landscape.
It was moderated by N G Vinod, Partner, Law Chambers of Vin Sa & Ian, who opened the session by sharing his observation that the UN, though not a perfect institution, has given smaller nations a voice. He asked whether the world would be better off without it, and invited the panel to first recognise what the UN has achieved before considering whether its present structure remains fit for purpose, and whether the problem lies with the institution itself or with its member states.
The first speaker, Professor Chester Brown SC, Professor of International Law and International Arbitration at The University of Sydney Law School and Barrister at 7 Wentworth Selborne Chambers in Sydney, described the UN as a success story, particularly when measured against the track record of its predecessor, the League of Nations. He recalled that even when the Security Council (“SC”) was paralysed by the veto during the Cold War, the UN remained a forum for dialogue at moments of acute danger. He also highlighted the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) as a major success, given its body of contentious cases and advisory opinions across a wide range of international law issues, including boundary and sovereignty disputes.
The second speaker, Dr Tan Hsien-Li, Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore and Editor of the Asian Journal of International Law, spoke from the perspective of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”). She explained that the principles of the UN Charter underpinned ASEAN’s founding at a time when the region, largely made up of former colonies, was fractured by tensions. She noted that peace was instituted through various treaties, and that approaches to disputes such as those in the South China Sea have since moved beyond diplomacy to engagement grounded in international law. She further observed that ASEAN would not have embraced human rights and socio-economic ideals without the UN and its agencies.
The final speaker, Professor Emeritus Dr Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Research Advisor at Khazanah Research Institute, traced the UN’s origins as the embodiment of post-war multilateralism, beginning with President Franklin D Roosevelt’s efforts in 1944. Unlike the League of Nations, which he described as an arrangement among Western powers, the new system treated the Global South as equal members. He cautioned, however, that few rich countries have met the 1970 commitment to transfer 0.7% of their gross domestic product to developing countries, that aid has become increasingly conditional, and that the United States (“US”) has fallen short of its obligations to the UN.
Professor Brown further outlined the Board of Peace, established in late 2025 with the SC’s endorsement. He explained that its Charter, adopted in 2026, expands its mandate to promoting stability in areas affected or threatened by conflict generally, and warned of serious conflict should the Board act where the SC bears primary responsibility for international peace and security. Dr Tan contended that such initiatives threaten the goodwill built over 80 years. She stressed, however, that multilateralism has never been monolithic, and that smaller arrangements between nations have coexisted with the UN system. Professor Jomo, on the other hand, observed that rich countries have not been seriously committed to the UN’s goals and that there is no meaningful sanction against the most powerful states. He illustrated this with the refusal of developed countries during the COVID-19 pandemic to honour the public health flexibilities agreed to in 2001 under the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) intellectual property regime, and with the paralysis of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism since appointments were blocked during President Barack Obama’s second term. He stressed that this pattern predates the current US administration.
On the UN’s finances, Professor Brown highlighted the Secretary-General’s warning of record arrears of approximately US$1.6 billion and of imminent financial collapse unless member states pay in full and on time, with missions losing field presence and troops being withdrawn. Professor Jomo added that the Secretariat has allowed unelected multi-stakeholder bodies and corporate interests to gain influence in areas such as global health and food systems, giving member states excuses not to meet their obligations. Dr Tan cautioned that humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, particularly in Africa, would suffer most.
During the Question-and-Answer segment, it was observed that while the UN can do little about the weaponisation of the rule of law, smaller groupings such as ASEAN have made a system weighted against them work. Professor Jomo doubted that the Global South presently has the leadership to articulate its concerns. In closing, the panel was asked to propose one realistic reform. The speakers pointed to compulsory jurisdiction for the ICJ, reform of the Security Council, including the veto and permanent representation for unrepresented regions, and taking smaller powers more seriously, underscoring that the UN remains the principal embodiment of multilateralism and that its future depends as much on the commitment of its member states as on institutional reform.
*This article reports on Breakout Session 8, Stream C: International Law.