UN80: Beyond Mere Technocratic Solutions

Rethinking UN80 and Reform Through Norm Contestation

5 July 2025

By Andraž Melanšek

As the United Nations (UN) approaches its 80th anniversary, it faces a moment of unprecedented tension and transformation. With rising military spending, declining investments in multilateralism, and a sharply reduced budget, expectations placed on international organizations now far exceed what they are resourced to deliver. In response, the UN80 reform process and the 2024 Pact for the Future summit have prompted a comprehensive review of all peace operations. These efforts purport to ensure that the UN can offer more agile and tailored responses to today’s complex challenges. But while the technocratic focus on performance, streamlining and efficiency dominates the conversation, something more fundamental is at stake, which is obscured in external communications, absent from internal communication and too often neglected altogether. At its core, this is a political struggle over how the UN’s normative foundations, and the liberal international order they support, are understood and carried forward.

What we are witnessing today is the contestation of foundational international norms, which is increasingly visible across multiple domains of global politics. The principle of non-intervention, for example, is challenged by competing justifications for military involvement in conflicts such as Ukraine, Syria, or the Sahel, where actors invoke sovereignty, protection, or counterterrorism to legitimize divergent actions. Human rights norms are contested both in rhetoric and practice, with some states rejecting universality in favour of culturally specific interpretations. Multilateralism itself, once a bedrock norm of international cooperation, is under pressure as major powers bypass the UN system in favour of ad hoc coalitions or unilateral action. Even long-established norms, such as diplomatic immunity and the prohibition of torture, are eroded not only through violations but through shifting political discourse that questions their continued relevance or applicability.

However, recent findings in norm research show that such contestation is not necessarily a sign of failure. Rather, it is an essential part of how norms evolve. Their meaning and application are constantly debated, questioned, and interpreted differently by various actors. Even when there is broad agreement on a principle, such as the protection of civilians, there is often disagreement about what it entails in practice: who should be protected, by whom, and under what conditions. These disagreements are not just noise; they are the mechanism through which norms remain dynamic and relevant. At this moment of reflection around UN80, this insight offers an opportunity for broader agency in shaping the normative meanings that underpin the international order. It also provides the UN with a chance to enhance the legitimacy of the norms it promotes by listening to disagreement and incorporating it into structured deliberation.

So, what are norms? They are shared standards that guide what is seen as appropriate behaviour among actors who belong to a particular community. The entire international order rests on such norms. They define which actions are legitimate, expected, or prohibited. For instance, most people would never consider targeting civilians in conflict, not only because it is illegal, but because the international community broadly considers it morally unacceptable. That is how a norm functions. Norms do more than reflect the present; they help shape what we see as possible for the future. When the UN first began speaking about climate justice or gender parity, these ideas seemed ambitious or even unrealistic. But as they were repeated in mandates, reports, and programming, they gradually reshaped expectations. In this way, norms help broaden the horizon of what the international community can strive for.

Over the past 80 years, the United Nations has played a central role in creating, promoting, and institutionalizing international norms. From the prohibition of landmines to the protection of children in armed conflict, the UN has worked with civil society and member states to place new issues on the global agenda. It has helped translate emerging norms into legal instruments, embed them in peacekeeping mandates, and shape how they are implemented on the ground. Yet in recent years, this normative function has been downplayed. Reviving and reaffirming this role is essential if the UN is to remain a credible steward of the international order. One way forward, is to look inward into its own work and bring the inconsistencies into the open and address them.

Norms are no longer seen as abstract rules handed down from states to international organizations. Instead, they are understood to live in and through practice. Scholars have shown that organizations like the UN do not simply implement norms; they actively interpret and shape them. In peacekeeping, for example, contested norms such as protection of civilians, impartiality, or consent are constantly being negotiated in mandate language, mission planning, and field-level decision-making. As these norms are applied in complex political and security environments, their meaning evolves. The normative frameworks within which peace operations are embedded are not neutral. They are arenas of contestation where some interpretations are legitimized, others sidelined. The UN’s role in this process is pivotal. How it prioritizes norms, how it frames them in policy and guidance, and how it delivers on them in missions directly shapes global expectations of what is legitimate and appropriate. These decisions are never merely technical; they are inherently political and normative acts.

The normative dimension of daily UN work is often overlooked, even by staff themselves. While working on policies and standard operating procedures in peace and security, both at UN Headquarters and in MINUSMA, I often found myself reflecting on how the language I chose could shape perceptions, steer implementation, and gradually become institutional truth. Yet this kind of reflexivity was not always encouraged. The role of Best Practice Officers, for example, was frequently seen as merely a technical function, rather than one requiring critical engagement with the political and normative implications of their work. Even more, their role was often limited to showcasing positive examples, sidelining the contestation, contradictions, or failures that emerged in the field. But these challenges often revealed more about the state of peace operations and the UN’s normative orientation than success stories did. Promoting what works is important. But sustaining the organization’s relevance also requires creating space for the difficult questions, about what didn’t work, why it didn’t, and what it says about the norms we aim to uphold.

Therefore, every policy, ST/AI, budget note, or memo shapes how international norms are interpreted and applied. When norms are ambiguous, inconsistent or contested implementation reveals where guidance is unclear or values are in tension. At a time of increasing delegated authority, with often diverging standards for different carriers of such authority, and closer engagement with affected communities, the UN must take these signals seriously. Framing reform purely in managerial terms risks clouding core normative questions and missing the opportunity to clarify the organization’s role as a standard-setter.

The current contestation of core international norms is not just a challenge but an opportunity to renew the liberal international order. Rather than seeing disagreements as a threat, the UN should treat them as openings to reaffirm the values it was founded on. Engaging critically with such feedback can help refine how norms like human rights and protection of civilians are applied across different contexts. As staff draft budget submissions or policy briefs for the peace operations review, they should reflect on the normative implications of their work. Are we simply delivering outputs, or are we reinforcing shared standards that shape a fairer international system? This mindset must also inform mission planning and evaluation. Bottom-up reflection, especially when it questions entrenched assumptions, is essential if reform is to go beyond procedure and contribute to meaningful institutional purpose.

To help move the conversation forward, three recommendations follow.

1. Frame Reform as a Renewal of Purpose

Reform should be positioned as an effort to reenergize the UN’s normative mission. Rather than presenting change as a matter of cost-efficiency or structural adjustment, communications should highlight how proposed reforms strengthen the organization’s ability to deliver on its founding values. This can be done at all levels: from strategic speeches by leadership to the narrative framing of departmental reform papers. When mid-level staff develop concept notes or programme strategies, connecting proposed adjustments to the core principles of the UN can enhance both relevance and buy-in. A P4 drafting a section of the peace operations review might ask: “Does this proposal improve our ability to uphold human dignity or promote peaceful cooperation?” If yes, say it explicitly.

2. Treat Contestation as Constructive

Instead of fearing disagreement, the UN should encourage inclusive and structured spaces for norm discussion. This includes dialogues with civil society, consultations with staff, and engagements with underrepresented member states. Peace operations can experiment with internal reflection sessions that explore how norms are applied in practice, where tensions arise, and what that reveals about implementation gaps. Within Secretariat departments, staff preparing inputs for the peace operations review can flag areas where contested norms need more guidance, clearer definitions, or a review of doctrine. A team lead drafting mission guidance could include a short annex summarizing common implementation dilemmas and suggesting where policy clarification is needed.

3. Embed Reflexivity in Institutional Practice

The UN system should systematically reflect on the normative impact of its activities. This can be done by incorporating a norm lens into internal evaluations, guidance documents, and budget justifications. For example, when a department writes its budget narrative, it could include a short section explaining how its priorities contribute to norms such as rule of law, gender equality, or peaceful dispute resolution. Reflexivity can also be built into performance management, training, and knowledge products. Asking "What kind of normative order are we reinforcing?" should become a regular feature of institutional learning. For example, when drafting a policy brief on mission drawdown, staff could ask: “What message does this send about international commitment to long-term peacebuilding?”

This is not only a task for diplomats or senior officials. Staff drafting policy briefs, mission planners writing terms of reference, and analysts reviewing programme effectiveness all participate in the everyday shaping of norms. Reform, then, is not something that happens only in New York or Addis Ababa. It happens in the everyday work of the organization. That is where norms live.

Andraž Melanšek is a former UN civil servant with professional and leadership experience in peace and security, administration, and knowledge management. He is currently pursuing a PhD in international norm implementation through peacekeeping, with research interests in protection of civilians and management of international organizations.