Small states, big challenges: The legal paradox of UN membership

This article is an extension of the views I previously expressed in my article, “The Feeble Existence of the United Nations,” published on 16 October 2024.

- PRAGATI SOLANKI

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations (UN) has aspired to provide a global framework for peace, security, and cooperation among sovereign nations. Yet, as it marks its 80th anniversary, glaring structural deficiencies remain. Among these, the overlooked “small-state problem” stands out a legal and political paradox that emerged in the late 1960s when many newly independent small-states began applying for UN membership amid rapid decolonisation.

At its core lies a fundamental tension between two legitimate principles of international law: the right of self-determination and the capacity of a state to fulfil its obligations under the UN Charter. The 1933 Montevideo Convention remains the benchmark for statehood, setting four requirements: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. Yet, notably absent is any reference to a minimum population or economic capacity.

This legal gap enabled small-states territories often with fewer than one million inhabitants and extremely limited resources to claim full statehood. For these micro-states, UN membership held immense political significance. It was a formal endorsement of their sovereignty and equality under Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, shielding them from potential coercion by larger powers.

However, sovereignty clashed with practicality. Could small-states shoulder the obligations of UN membership from active participation in the General Assembly and financial contributions to involvement in global peace and security mechanisms without overwhelming their capacity?