Aryan Rajagopal | Originally Published: 21 March 2026
The differences between perception and reality in the modern world of International Relations (IR) are often indistinguishable. This is especially true regarding the creation and growth of the United Nations (UN), which, following the Second World War, forged a new global order founded on values of cooperation and the restoration of peace. Canada was quick to attach itself to this initiative, with Prime Minister WL Mackenzie King signing the UN Charter on its behalf in June 1945. On that fateful day, the nation committed itself to a grand endeavour: designing a better world for all of civilization to enjoy. Yet a critical question must be asked: has the United Nations, and indeed the international community, truly become a more “orderly” and “peaceful” place since it tore itself apart over eighty years ago?
In 1945, by the stroke of a pen, Canada signed on to a lifelong commitment to peace, yet the consistency of that mission has often come under question. In “The Outlawry of War,” Philip Kerr divided those striving for peace into two schools of thought. Namely, he references “the idealists,” those who wish to “immediately abolish war” for a system that favours non-violent conflict resolution. This group broadly describes efforts surrounding the formation of the UN; leaders who acknowledged the terrors of war and demanded that it cease permanently. Kerr goes on to predict the tolerance of violence among states as an inevitable prelude to “anarchy and war,” reflecting on the structures and functions of the then-young League of Nations. Despite its eventual succession by the UN, the shortcomings of the League system identified by Kerr resonate to this day. The “idealists” he identifies among the League’s creators were nearly identical in background, if not the same, as those who dictated the creation of its successor. Institutions such as the Security Council and General Assembly, while productive, were not forced to dismiss violence as an arbitration tool between states. Prime Minister King’s signature ultimately committed to a performative endeavour; an idealist notion of peace, founded on the legal permission of violence where deemed necessary.
Over 80 years later, violent conflicts between states like those in Ukraine cast a deep shadow over UN initiatives, forged on the failures of the League of Nations and compounded by its own systems. Operating within a system where state violence is tolerable, the illusion of Canada committing itself to the opposition of war is nothing more than a noble lie, proven repeatedly by the violence between and within states witnessed across the globe during and after the Cold War era. For instance, after 9/11, Canada stationed armed forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, during which it conducted combat missions and trained security personnel. Canada’s continued use of force illustrates that although the UN has made strides throughout its history to secure a lasting global peace, in Kerr’s words, “it does not outlaw war,” which has kept the international community susceptible to “violence as the final arbiter of peace.” Notably, the UN has made exceptions where the use of force is deemed legal, allowing states to resort to violence to address threats. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states can use force in cases of self-defence and collective self-defence. In the case of Afghanistan, Canada acted in the collective self-defence of the United States. The self-defence exception has also given rise to the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, whereby states can take violent ‘defensive’ actions against states they merely suspect will attack them. Thereby, despite the UN’s efforts to become a universal arbiter, without guarantees on the intolerance of violence between and within states, there remains anarchy in the world of IR, and thus, a false and incomplete peace.
References
1. Kerr, Philip. “The Outlawry of War.” Oxford University Press 7, no. 6 (1928): 361-388.
2. United Nations. “Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51).” United Nations. Accessed March 12, 2026. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7.
3. Veterans Affairs Canada. “Afghanistan 2001-2014.” Government of Canada, August 27, 2025. https://www.veterans.gc.ca/en/remembrance/military-history/afghanistan.
The Attaché 