There are moments in history when the crucial question is not who has more power, but whether an order still exists that can contain it. When international law and the institutions meant to uphold it weaken, power tends to take its place.

International law was born with men like Francisco de Vitoria, who conceived of all nations as a moral and legal community ordered toward the common good. When law ceases to direct force toward good, it dissolves into violence. Precisely for this reason, the world needs reform of the UN, and in particular, reform of its Security Council.

What does “reform” mean?

• First: representativeness.  A body that decides on global peace and security cannot indefinitely reflect the 1945 power map.  Latin America, Africa, and large parts of Asia rightly demand greater weight. Political legitimacy is part of legal effectiveness: a Council perceived as an elite club loses moral authority and the ability to convene.
• Second: limits to the veto.  The veto was created to prevent a rupture between major powers; today, all too often, it operates as a guarantee of impunity. Mechanisms are needed to prevent a single actor from blocking collective action.
• Third: automatic pathways out of paralysis.  If the Council does not act, an institutional channel with greater universal legitimacy—for example, the General Assembly—must be activated without delay to allow for coordinated and verifiable decisions, not mere declarations.
• Fourth: and most difficult, credible coercive mechanisms under multilateral mandate, with strict controls. Without the capacity for legitimate coercion, international law is reduced to mere exhortation.

Here, the Social Doctrine of the Church offers a compass: peace is not the absence of war, but the fruit of justice; and the international community needs institutions that effectively serve the common good. This implies realism: law without force is fragile. But it also implies morality: force without law is tyranny. The point of equilibrium is an international authority limited by law, with a subsidiary structure, oriented toward human dignity, and controlled by clear rules. This is how Benedict XVI saw it (“Caritas in veritate”, n. 67).

We currently face a dilemma: either we strengthen an international order where power is subject to the rule of law, or we return to a scenario where law is merely the decorative language of the victors. Reforming the UN does not automatically guarantee peace. But failing to reform it suggests that the law of the strongest will once again become the dominant language of world politics.

Incidentally, Pope Leo XIV was no stranger to a perspective in which power is limited. Looking directly at the case of Venezuela, he said: “The good of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail above any other consideration and lead to overcoming violence and embarking on paths of justice and peace, guaranteeing the sovereignty of the country, ensuring the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, and respecting the human and civil rights of each and every person” (January 4, 2026).