So based on the charter of the United Nations, Article 2, the organisation is based on the sovereign of every member and they will not take actions for domestic affairs (in this context, it is in a military way). So basically what I am trying to ask is that whether or not an endorsement is counted as an act of dispute towards the sovereignty of a country.

In other words, if the United Nations decides to publicly endorse a political candidate, do they contradict their own stance on respecting the sovereignty of a country?

  • 2
    If the UN endorsed a political candidate then it would almost definitely contravene point 7 of Article 2. However, I take it from your aside regarding military action that you mean something other than mere endorsement. Could you elaborate? Do you have a particular incident in mind that you could link to?
    – Alex
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 11:49
  • I find it unlikely the general assembly will ever endorse any candidate anywhere, but perhaps the ramifications of some official making some kind of statement would be interesting.
    – user9389
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:58

1 Answer 1


The United Nations has never endorsed any political candidate in the past as it is not specified in the purposes (Article 1) and principles (Article 2) of the United Nations' Charter. It will never happen in the future.

Article 1: Purposes of the United Nations

Article 2, clause 7 of this chapter reemphasizes the fact that only the UN Security Council has the power to force any country to do anything by stating that "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." (Only the Security Council can institute Chapter VII enforcement measures.)

In other words, they only intervene when there is a conflict (threat to the peace, breach of the peace, act of aggression) in a country.

  • 1
    This reads a little absolutist and is overly charitable to the UN with regards to staying true to their mission. You can't speak for the future in such a way. Remember this is the same organization that was guilty of the Saddam Hussein oil for food fraud and several child rape and pedophile rackets
    – user9790
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:13
  • 3
    @KDog The question is about the UN's endorsing a political candidate. Not about their fraud cases.
    – Rathony
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:14
  • My point is you can't always count on the UN staying true to it's founding principles, and they do often stray.
    – user9790
    Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 17:15
  • @KDog that is as pointless of a claim as claiming that you can not count on Republican party members not killing and raping you, because of Ted Bundy.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 14:44
  • 1
    @KDog If you knew that the paedophilic ring did not involve the higher level of the UN, why did you affirm that it did, then? Because that is what Institutional fraud and sodomy rings at the very highest levels of office means. And whatever doubts you have, Kofi Annan (that is his name) was not prosecuted for the FFO scandal; if we are going to ignore pressumption of innocence I would like to talk about a politician who made profit by knowingly making false statements about some University (which, you may know, is called fraud) or some general that did share intel without authorization.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 15:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .