There has been a significant increase in international institutions since 1945 with the United Nations as the most prominent of these bodies, seeking to resolve state concerns without conflict States appear keen to establish global norms and values via political institutions such as the United Nations and affiliated economic institutions such as the World Trade Organisation where soft power can be wielded as well as bodies such as UNESCO and UNICEFThe growing number of bodies within the United Nations allows states to use soft power to persuade and attract other states to follow a desired norm appears to support the view that soft power is becoming more significant via these institutionsStates have used the United Nations to attract, to co-opt and to seduce States appear increasingly concerned about their reputation in global institutions, we have seen the development of a commonly referred to soft power index and there has been an increased use of the term by diplomats and policy makers with a preference for soft power diplomacy and support for UN judicial institutions like the ICJThe increased desire to gain enhanced soft power status in global institutions would appear to suggest that states consider soft power to be a vital and particularly significant resource in their participation in global politicsStates have had to turn to the use of soft power via the United Nations with the realisation of the dangers of the use of hard power in the nuclear age and the cost to all when hard power is used, be it military or economic The use of economic sanctions and/or hard military power usually entails significant cost and damage for all involved with the Russian intervention in Crimea/Ukraine and US in Iraq serving as good examplesPolitical state leaders tend to be concerned about the impact of the use of hard power on their popularity and can see an obvious benefit from using the United Nations to persuade and co-opt rather than risk the damage which the use of hard power often entailsThe use of hard power in cases such as Iraq for the US and Crimea for Russia has led to some condemnation from within the United Nations The United States received almost global reputational damage for its action in Iraq and the wider War on Terror which Obama attempted to rectify with use of a soft power, multilateral approach with a focus on soft power diplomacyStates with influence in the increasing number of United Nations agencies are more likely to use a soft power approach in advance of turning to the use of hard power

The United Nations has an enhanced position for those states who have a degree of hard power with the permanent five in the United Nations Security Council serving as example given that all members have significant hard rather than soft power Although the permanent members of the Security Council weren’t all nuclear powers when it was established there certainly appears to greater status afforded to states in global politics who do hold military and economic powerIf the global community is dominated by those states who have a hard power capability and global institutions also seem to recognise this then hard power still appears to be more significant than soft powerGlobal institutions such as the United Nations and even the linked WTO can sanction and support the use of hard powerThe United Nations has sanctioned the use of hard power including the stationing of UN troops in numerous conflict zonesThe fact that the United Nations does sometimes appear willing to sanction the use of hard power in global politics weakens the view that soft power is now the most significant form of power in global politicsSoft power often appears to be insufficient as a policy tool for states with states often turning to hard power when soft power appears to have failed Global institution attempts to use soft power persuasion appear not to have been as effective as hard power threats in recent cases such as the United States dealings under Trump with both North Korea and IranExamples of United Nations soft power failure and the success of the use or threat of use of hard power would suggest that soft power hasn’t become more significant than hard power in global politics power without seemingly a concern for soft power and without regard for global institutionsThere are numerous examples of states acquiring their desired outcomes with the use of hard power rather than soft power and taking action without thought for any soft power damageRussian actions in Ukraine/Crimea as well as in Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Syria serve as just a few of the examples of the use of hard power without seemingly a concern for soft power and without regard for global institutionsIf states of differing levels of influence in global politics are still willing to use hard power for their own interests and without regard for the impact on their soft power status then it would appear that soft power status and use in global institutions like the UN is not as significant as some may think