Beyond the UNSC: The Rise of Regional Organizations in Global Security Governance

Öz

The regular incapacity of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to manage international disputes due to the veto-driven stagnation among its permanent members has increasingly pushed regional organizations into critical roles in global security governance. This paper explores how regional organizations—specifically the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the African Union (AU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—have assumed responsibilities in conflict management and diplomacy when UNSC action is blocked. It inquires whether these organizations are able to meaningfully supplement or offset the UNSC inaction, contending that although they cannot fully substitute the Security Council, they have nevertheless emerged as indispensable actors in sustaining peace and stability. Through an analysis of NATO’s involvement in Kosovo and Afghanistan, the AU’s peacekeeping in Sudan and Mali, and ASEAN’s engagement in Myanmar and the South China Sea, the paper examines both the achievements and constraints of regional approaches. These include limited financial resources, political divisions, and continued reliance on UNSC authorization and funding. Their legal mandate, anchored in Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter and developments such as UNSC Resolution 2719 (2023), deliniates the scope of their autonomy. Additionally, the rise of non-conventional threats such as cyber conflict and climate-related insecurity poses novel challenges. The study concludes, underscoring the necessity of closer coordination with the UNSC and internal reform, so that regional organizations can contribute more effectively to a decentralized and multipolar global security order.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• UN Security Council
• regional organizations
• NATO
• African Union
• ASEAN
• global security governance
• veto power
• peacekeeping
• Chapter VIII
• UNSC Resolution 2719

BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin Ötesinde: Küresel Güvenlik Yönetişiminde Bölgesel Örgütlerin Yükselişi

Öz

Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin (BMGK) sürekli üyeleri arasındaki veto kaynaklı tıkanıklık nedeniyle uluslararası anlaşmazlıkları yönetmedeki düzenli yetersizliği, bölgesel örgütleri küresel güvenlik yönetiminde giderek daha kritik konumlara taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, NATO, Afrika Birliği (AU) ve Güneydoğu Asya Ülkeleri Birliği (ASEAN) gibi bölgesel örgütlerin, BMGK’nın jeopolitik çıkmazlar nedeniyle işlevsiz kaldığı durumlarda çatışmaları yönetme ve diplomatik çözümler üretme konusunda üstlendikleri önemli liderlik ve müdahale rollerini incelemektedir. Bölgesel yaklaşımların kapasite ve sınırlılıklarını vurgulamak amacıyla NATO’nun Kosova ve Afganistan müdahaleleri, Afrika Birliği’nin Sudan ve Mali’deki barışı koruma misyonları ile ASEAN’ın Güney Çin Denizi ve Myanmar’daki diplomatik çabaları analiz edilmektedir. Bu örgütler artan görünürlüklerine rağmen finansal kısıtlamalar, iç siyasi çatışmalar ve BMGK’nın onayına ve finansmanına bağımlılık gibi önemli zorluklarla halen karşı karşıyadırlar. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, merkeziyetçi olmayan küresel güvenlik yönetimini güçlendirmek amacıyla bölgesel örgütler arasında daha iyi bir işbirliği ve yapısal değişimlerin gerekli olduğunun altını çizmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BM Güvenlik Konseyi
• bölgesel örgütler
• NATO
• Afrika Birliği
• ASEAN
• küresel güvenlik yönetişimi
• veto yetkisi
• barışı koruma
• BM Şartı VIII. Bölüm
• BMGK Kararı 2719

Kaynakça

1. African Centre for Strategic Studies. (2023). Africa’s evolving security architecture. https://africacenter.org
2. African Union. (2000). Constitutive Act of the African Union. Addis Ababa: African Union. https://au.int/en/treaties/constitutive-act-african-union
3. African Union. (2020). Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) Roadmap: 2016–2020. Peace and Security Department. https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/apsa-roadmap-2016-2020-eng.pdf
4. African Union. (2025). Strategic framework for African peace and security architecture (APSA) 2025. https://au.int
5. Amani Africa. (2025). Operationalisation of the African Standby Force (ASF). Amani Africa Policy Brief, June 2025. https://amaniafrica.org/operationalisation-of-the-african-standby-force-asf/
6. Aminga, V. M., & Krampe, F. (2020). Climate-related security risks and the African Union. SIPRI Policy Brief, May 2020. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2020/sipri-policy-briefs/climate-related-security-risks-and-african-union
7. ASEAN Secretariat. (2023). ASEAN regional cooperation in cybersecurity and disaster response. https://asean.org
8. ASEAN. (2002). Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea. https://asean.org

9. ASEAN. (2008). Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/book/asean-charter/
10. ASEAN. (2016). ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint 2025. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/7.-December-2020-APSC-Blueprint-2025.pdf
11. Ba, A. D. (2009). (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford University Press
12. Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2021). Understanding peacekeeping (3rd ed.). Polity Press.
13. Bothe, M. (2000). NATO and the use of force: Legal aspects. International Affairs, 76(3), 503–522.
14. Browning, C. S. (2015). Climate security and the African Union. African Security Review, 24(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2015.1077056
15. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2019). Negotiating governance on non-traditional security in Southeast Asia and beyond. Columbia University Press.
16. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2022). Non-traditional security in ASEAN: Balancing norms and practical responses. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(3), 311–335.
17. Centre for ASEAN Governance. (2025). Governing fragmentation: Decision-making in ASEAN. https://aseangovernance.org
18. Chesterman, S. (2001). Just war or just peace? Humanitarian intervention and international law. Oxford University Press.
19. Chesterman, S. (2008). Global governance and the role of the United Nations. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), Global governance and public accountability (pp. 65–85). Polity Press.
20. Chesterman, S. (2011). Asia’s ambivalence about international law and institutions: Past, present, and futures. European Journal of International Law, 21(4), 945–978. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr065
21. Coleman, K. P. (2020). International organizations and peace enforcement: The politics of international legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.
22. Dragneva, R., & Hartwell, C. A. (2022). The crisis of the multilateral order in Eurasia: Authoritarian regionalism and its limits. Politics and Governance, 10(2), 40–50.
23. Efstathiou, A. (2022). NATO in Afghanistan: Lessons in peacebuilding and exit strategy. Contemporary Security Policy, 43(1), 52–73.
24. Fabricius, P. (2022). What lessons can be learned from the closure of UNAMID? Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.org
25. Fawcett, L. (2023). Regional organizations. In P. D. Williams & M. McDonald (Eds.), *Security studies: An introduction* (4th ed., pp. 282–304). Routledge.
26. Fiott, D. (2022). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept: Forward to fundamentals. Survival, 64(5), 83–96.
27. Fiott, D. (2023). NATO’s next decade: Deterrence, cohesion and power politics. European Security, 32(1), 1–19.
28. Gartner, S. S. (2020). International peacekeeping: The challenges of cooperation. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(7), 1010–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2020.1733982
29. Heydarian, R. J. (2020). The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China, and the new struggle for global mastery. Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Jones, D. M., & Smith, M. L. R. (2007). Making process, not progress: ASEAN and the evolving East Asian regional order. International Security, 32(1), 148–184. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2007.32.1.148
31. Koblentz, G. D. (2017). Strategic stability in the second nuclear age: Challenges and responses. Council on Foreign Relations Discussion Paper. https://www.cfr.org/report/strategic-stability-second-nuclear-age
32. Kurlantzick, J. (2022, August 29). “ASEAN’s Complete Failure on Myanmar: A Short Overview.” Council on Foreign Relations.
33. Mahnken, T. G., & Paine, S. C. M. (2016). Armed conflict: The lessons of modern warfare. Cambridge University Press.
34. Murithi, T. (2013). The African Union: Pan-Africanism, peacebuilding and development. Ashgate.
35. NATO. (2022). Strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept
36. North Atlantic Treaty. (1949). The North Atlantic Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
37. Olsen, G. R. (2022). Twenty-first century military multilateralism: “Messy” and with unintended consequences. Politics and Governance, 10(2), 51–61.
38. Olsen, G. R. (2023). Rethinking non-interference: The Myanmar crisis and ASEAN’s normative shift. Global Affairs, 9(1), 57–73.
39. PeaceRep. (2023). ASEAN and Myanmar: Evaluating the five-point consensus. https://peacerep.org
40. Roberts, C. (2020). Regional security complexes and the global order. International Studies Review, 22(4), 729–746.
41. Roberts, C., & Habir, A. D. (2022). Strategic competition and regional organizations: ASEAN, the African Union, and global power politics. Global Policy, 13(S1), 48–60.
42. Security Council Report. (2023). UNSC Resolution 2719: Funding AU peace operations. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org
43. Simma, B. (2002). The Charter of the United Nations: A commentary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
44. Simon, L. (2021). NATO’s search for purpose after Afghanistan. The RUSI Journal, 166(5), 30–40.
45. Strangio, S. (2024, July 29). On Myanmar, ASEAN continues to lag behind a fast-evolving conflict. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2024/07/on-myanmar-asean-continues-to-lag-behind-a-fast-evolving-conflict/
46. United Nations Security Council. (2014). Resolution 2167 (S/RES/2167). https://undocs.org/S/RES/2167(2014)
47. United Nations Security Council. (2016). Resolution 2320 (S/RES/2320). https://undocs.org/S/RES/2320(2016)
48. United Nations Security Council. (2023). Resolution 2719 (S/RES/2719). https://undocs.org/S/RES/2719(2023)
49. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
50. United Nations. (2023, November). Peacekeeping fact sheet. United Nations Peacekeeping. https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/peacekeeping_fact_sheet_november_2023_english.pdf
51. Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford University Press.
52. Williams, P. D. (2011). War and conflict in Africa. Polity Press.
53. Williams, P. D. (2016, January 13). Can the African Standby Force deliver on its promise? Global Observatory. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2016/01/african-standby-force-au-peacekeeping/
54. Williams, P. D. (2021). The African Union and coercive diplomacy: Lessons from African peace operations. Routledge.
55. Williams, P. D., & Boutellis, A. (2014). Partnership peacekeeping: Challenges and opportunities in the United Nations–African Union relationship. African Affairs, 113(451), 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adu028
56. Yahya, M. (2022). Regional organizations and the crisis of multilateralism: Rethinking security cooperation in the Global South. Global Governance, 28(2), 201–220.
57. Zyberi, G. (2020). The Security Council, regional organizations, and the protection of human rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 38(1), 35–58.
58. Zürn, M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press.