@article{article_1791516, title={The Ineffectiveness of the UN in Crisis Management: The Cases of Ukraine and Gaza}, journal={Uluslararası Güncel Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi}, volume={5}, pages={1–9}, year={2026}, url={https://izlik.org/JA64JY95FB}, author={Yılmaz, Cüneyt}, keywords={United Nations, Security Council Veto, Crisis Management, Humanitarian Intervention, International Relations}, abstract={The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and security, yet its crisis management capacity has been increasingly questioned in the twenty-first century. This article examines the ineffectiveness of the UN in responding to contemporary conflicts, focusing on two critical cases: the ongoing war in Ukraine (2022–present) and the Gaza conflict (2023–present). Both crises highlight the structural limitations of the UN Security Council (UNSC), particularly the veto power held by its permanent members (P5), which often paralyzes decision-making where great-power interests are directly involved. The study employs a comparative case study method, drawing upon primary sources such as UN resolutions, Security Council debates, and General Assembly voting records, as well as secondary academic analyses and policy reports. The theoretical framework integrates realism, which emphasizes power politics and state interests; liberal institutionalism, which underscores multilateralism and the institutional role of the UN; and constructivism, which highlights the importance of norms, legitimacy, and international perceptions. Findings indicate that in Ukraine, Russia’s veto has shielded it from binding UNSC measures, relegating the UN to a primarily humanitarian role with limited political influence. In Gaza, repeated U.S. vetoes have prevented collective action against Israel, despite mounting humanitarian crises and allegations of international humanitarian law violations. In both cases, the UN General Assembly has attempted to fill the vacuum through symbolic resolutions, yet these measures lack binding authority. The analysis concludes that the UN remains a normative platform capable of articulating principles of international law and morality but lacks enforcement capacity to manage crises when great powers are implicated. The article argues for substantive institutional reforms, including Security Council restructuring, limitations on the veto in cases of mass atrocities, and hybrid mechanisms linking global and regional organizations to enhance legitimacy and effectiveness in crisis management.}, number={1}, organization={This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.}