The complex situation in various regions of the world, the intensification of geopolitical competition and a new wave of the “Cold War,” the accelerating arms race, the erosion of international legal norms, and other conflicting developments in the international arena continue to be a source of concern.
Address by the President of the Republic of Tajikistan His Excellency Emomali Rahmon, on the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the Republic of Tajikistan. 16.12.2025
Today, countries around the world face a multitude of risks and challenges, rare in history, and human society faces unprecedented security dilemmas. “What concept of security does the world need and how can all countries achieve common security” has become a pressing question for all to see.
Tajikistan supports the resolution of all disputes and conflicts through political and diplomatic means. In this regard, it is necessary for the countries of the world to redouble their efforts to achieve lasting and comprehensive peace based on international law.
Tajikistan’s proposal at the 79th session of the UN General Assembly to adopt a special resolution on the proclamation of the “Decade for Strengthening Peace for Future Generations” is aimed at strengthening peace and peaceful resolution of global problems.
In today’s turbulent world, this initiative creates conditions for international cooperation to achieve lasting peace.
In such complex and changing circumstances, the role of the United Nations as a platform for dialogue, cooperation, and the promotion of peace and security around the world is more important than ever. In this regard, the countries of the world must make concerted and sustained efforts in international practice to uphold this principle – a return to full compliance with international law.
Unfortunately, the United Nations’ efforts in this direction are not producing results. Due to disagreements, the Security Council of this influential body cannot even reach a unified position on adopting a resolution aimed at protecting the lives of civilians.
The UN Security Council cannot ensure security because of the veto power wielded by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), which allows them to block any decision, even if a majority of countries support it.
Therefore, other countries of the world, due to this international anarchy, are trying to establish good relations with each of these permanent members of the Security Council, as they are likely to become the object of these countries’ geopolitical goals and struggles.
The numerous conflicts raging around the world demonstrate that the UN Security Council is failing to fulfill its mandate to maintain international peace and security.
The UN Security Council “does not represent the interests of the international community and, therefore, lacks the means” to ensure peace.
When UN Security Council member states fail to agree on a solution to the problem of war and peace, and geopolitical interests take center stage, the global order is disrupted. As a result, security becomes a crisis, as promoting the interests of one state comes at the expense of another. In this situation, the “security dilemma” takes on particular significance.
A “security dilemma” arises when a power seeks hegemony rather than compromise. This leaves little room for the legitimate security interests of other countries.
This dilemma explains why a system in which states emphasize national security is extremely fragile: since it is impossible to distinguish defensive from offensive measures, each side’s attempts to enhance its own security simply exacerbate the other’s insecurity, triggering countermeasures that perpetuate a vicious cycle.
International security largely depends on the creators of the new world order, that is, on the actors of international politics. This is because the question of peace and war is decided primarily by the actors of international politics, and in particular, by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Looking at the centuries-long history of the development of international politics, it becomes clear that peace and security throughout the world have always depended on the actions of the superpowers.
The UN Security Council reflects the historical realities of the post-World War II period, and it functions as a group of great powers that emerged from that global conflict, for better or worse, according to the capabilities of the victors. After the fall of the Wall and the collapse of the USSR, the UN Security Council underwent a kind of renaissance, largely driven by Russia’s problems and China’s interest in integrating into the global economy.
The rules of engagement, laid out in the UN Charter and enforced by the Security Council, have fallen victim to geopolitical forces too powerful for an organization committed to legalism to withstand.
The security of all nations is indivisible. Ensuring the security of one country at the expense of the insecurity of others is unwise and inappropriate.
Today, the international community has witnessed the disregard and violation of international law, the foundation of order, peace, and stability on the planet. Therefore, our countries must make joint and consistent efforts in international practice to defend this principle—a return to full compliance with international law.
The United Nations is the institutional embodiment of the West’s desire to preserve the international order in which it has played a leading role for more than five hundred years. Therefore, maintaining a majority in the Security Council is important for the United States and Europe. This ultimately allows for effective control over the working bodies of the UN, primarily the Secretariat of this most important international organization. At the same time, the UN remains the last pillar of a relatively stable world order, while at the same time ensuring the formal participation of almost all countries in global negotiations. In other words, the UN is the product of a compromise in which the West maintains its dominance, while others try to ignore injustices to their own core interests. In fact, the United Nations represents the interests and goals of the victorious countries of World War II, which were able to break the opposing front. Therefore, the post-war conditions and the formation of the subsequent system had to respond to the needs of these countries. Such a system continues to this day. However, given the conflicting interests of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the international order is being disrupted.
With the existence of a dilemma of interests and the rise of geopolitical interests of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, international law and the UN Charter are being violated. In such a situation, responding to the prevailing international reality in accordance with international law is illogical and futile. World practice in such a situation can be described as international anarchy.
In connection with this situation, it is necessary to say that the crisis has arisen in the UN system itself, and in particular in its Security Council. In response to this situation, which is considered to be inaction, the future of the international system and the observance of international law are being called into question.
In modern conditions, in international reality, we can see many examples of human rights violations in various forms. The problem reaches a point where even international law (the UN Charter) is not observed by states in international relations. The articles and clauses of this charter are violated by states, especially superpowers, in modern conditions. When the UN Charter is openly violated in interstate relations, the direct consequence is the violation of human rights. This situation can be clearly seen in Palestine, Syria and Ukraine.
It is not for nothing that some scientific schools and political systems believe that without the use of force, the law cannot be observed, and therefore power is an integral part of its existence. Rudolf Chellen believed that force is a more important factor in maintaining the existence of the state than law, since law itself can only be supported by force. In connection with these considerations, it is necessary to say that until a powerful force defending international law appears in the world, the world situation will remain unchanged. The UN and the UN Security Council cannot act as a powerful global force at the moment. The continuation of this process will lead to the formation of a new world order.
In another context, it is necessary to recall “Inter arma silent leges”. “Inter arma silent leges” (“In war, the laws are silent”) is a well-known Latin phrase that in war, not laws, but military action prevail. This phrase shows that when armed conflicts arise, legal norms and the justice system take a back seat. International practice has proven through experience that in the process of military operations, given that the parties are aware of the “law of armed conflict”, civilians are deprived of the right to life.
Finally, it is necessary to raise the issue of “legal nihilism”. Legal nihilism in international relations manifests itself in ignoring or denying the norms of international law, as well as in the refusal of states to fulfill their obligations. This can manifest itself in various forms, including the use of force in violation of the UN Charter, non-execution of decisions of international courts, violation of human rights and other actions that contradict the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.
In connection with the current conditions of the world, it is necessary to say that the specific trend of “state hubris” has acquired a special place. According to the concept of “state hubris”, a superpower puts itself above all, violates existing international norms and rules, and at the same time remains unpunished. Impunity, which is a sign of the absence of a greater power, leads to great tragedies in the world. These countries, contrary to international law, do not respect the sovereignty of other countries, and due to their arrogance, they destroy the world order. Therefore, the modern world needs special repairs to create a just system.
Nazriev Karim,
Deputy Head of the Department for Analysis and Forecasting of Domestic Policy of the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan.