This essay examines the human rights violations committed against the Rohingya people in 2017 and assesses the effectiveness of the accountability mechanisms established by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It is concluded that, in accordance with the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision, investigations into crimes committed against Rohingya Muslims should have been conducted in accordance with the principles of ethics and integrity enshrined in international law and human rights law. The essay focuses on the fundamental principles of ethics and integrity found in international law and human rights law.

The principles of ethics and integrity of international law should have allowed the UN Security Council to act in accordance with international human rights doctrine. The routine approach to implementing and enforcing international law and human rights has paralysed the ethics and integrity principle. In this regard, the essay emphasises the need for a more comprehensive framework to address issues such as the genocide against the Rohingya, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and any future complications.

Introduction
Over the years, great thinkers, jurists, judges, lawyers, and politicians have discussed human rights as a fundamental principle for upholding justice and social structures in a state without discussing the compound elements of this principle. Human rights are unquestionably an important component of traditional politics and accountability. Prior to the concept of human rights, society was founded on virtue.

As great thinkers and scholars have observed, virtue became the substance, and ethics and integrity, to the extent that this is possible, became the extended substance. The three-part doctrine of social norms, accountability, and responsibility is undermined when the legitimacy of virtue is denied in legal principles. This essay demonstrates that ethics, integrity, and the rule of law are the three components of the norms and state accountability doctrine.

International legal doctrine requires states to do everything within the bounds of the law, and they should be held accountable for human rights violations through the legal system. This is also a source of disagreement, because when ethics and integrity are lacking, respect for the law suffers, there is no accountability, and thus abuse of power becomes the custodian of the law. The ability to obey the law is a requirement for society and its structures. International law becomes abstract and superficially distorted as a result of the absence of the other compound elements in society.

The Rohingya crisis exemplifies the erosion of ethics and integrity in international law and human rights. As a result, when ethics and integrity fail, one of the possible human rights consequences is crimes against humanity. The UN Security Council's lack of urgency reflects this failure. The legacy dates back to the early 1990s, when Rohingya refugees fled Myanmar in an attempt to escape the government's human rights violations. The Rohingya (an ethnic Muslim group) who fled Myanmar became stateless as a result of human rights violations.

Accountability Failed in the Case of the Rohingya People

To assert the validity and legitimacy of international criminal law in prosecution and enforcement, its institutional framework in terms of accountability must be examined. As a result, the question in the case of the Rohingya is whether the institutional framework could have prevented human rights violations in its current form and substance. To address this form and substance, we must critically examine the killing of Rohingya civilians in Myanmar. Consider the fact that the jurisdictions of some national states in South Asian countries conflict with UN institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (ICC).

In light of the ICJ ruling, Myanmar was required to take reasonable steps to prevent civilians from being killed on its territory. This claim is in accordance with Genocide Convention Article II. This initiative also requires Myanmar to exert control over its military, people, and institutions in order to prevent the spread of civilian killing. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that this obligation extends to individuals and organisations controlled or supported directly by the Myanmar government.

This is problematic, in part because the precautionary measure is ineffective. Accountability requires the cessation of all human rights violations. This implies that the demand and obligation should be to avoid and stop all human rights violations. In the end, neither goal was achieved in the Rohingya situation.

As a result, neither the ICJ approach nor the precautionary measures produced a desirable result for civilians or international law in both its short and long arms' length. However, in this context, accountability means that the state must bear and respect a non-negotiable duty. Based on this conceptual analysis, we can conclude that the ICJ's assessment of Myanmar's behaviour deserves to be commended, particularly the decision to request that the government demonstrate the steps taken to avoid or stop human rights violations.

One of the case's central issues is the disparity between the national legal system's approach to human rights protection and that of the ICJ. This distinction is possibly the main reason Myanmar rejected the ICJ decision. The question of whether a distinction between human rights protection and interpretation should be made is central to our understanding of the relationship between national legal systems and the application of international law. In response to this issue, UN Charter Articles 94 and 99 were invoked. However, because China and Russia vetoed the United Nations Security Council's action, this action had no long-term impact (UNSC). Because of these vetoes, any UN Security Council enforcement action is doomed from the start.

In essence, institutional dogmatism stems from the Rohingya's failure to protect their human rights. Consider how the rule of law is heavily reliant on people in positions of authority exercising their authority in a proper and just manner. It went on to say that power must be exercised within the framework established by society, implying that the rule of law has the capacity to prevent abuses of power. This point may be valid in an ideological context. In practise, however, this point is superfluous, owing to humanity's inability to restrain its abuse of power and influence over the environment.

Except for those who have the ability to prevent themselves from engaging in actions that are harmful to society's overall good. According to this viewpoint, the UNSC is tainted by personal agendas and is less concerned with protecting human rights and upholding equality and justice principles. As a result, in this case, the paradox is that UNSC decision-making on human rights protection during wartime will be restricted or limited.

Fundamentally, this could result in a more effective and efficient response to human rights violations during times of war. As a result, the UN Security Council may decide not to debate or deliberate on the decision to protect human rights.

In the coming decades, the consequences of not limiting the UN Security Council's power in human rights matters may complicate and jeopardise the UN's position as a

legitimate peacekeeping and security organisation. Consider the Rohingya, where vetoes on the UN Security Council hampered the organization's ability to prevent the slaughter of thousands of civilians in Myanmar. The derailment represents a failed peace and security project, which should not be overlooked. This could also imply that the United Nations' primary goals and objectives for the present and future are in jeopardy. If these issues are not addressed, the UN may be unable to keep the world's fragile peace and security in place in the coming decades.

Furthermore, the Preamble and Article 1(1) of the UN Charter state that global peace and security must be maintained. It goes on to say that achieving peace and security is a collective responsibility, implying that the organisation must act as a cohesive unit. In philosophical terms, unity cannot be achieved unless peace and security are treated equally everywhere on the planet.

The United Nations' fundamental survival in the twenty-first century is jeopardised by this unequal treatment. While it is widely assumed that the United Nations serves as a platform for diplomatic relationships, it is important to remember that diplomacy cannot exist in the absence of peace and security.

It is critical not to misinterpret the duties imposed by the Preamble to the UN Charter, which appears to imply that protecting human rights is fundamental to its value. As a result, under the UN's mandate, individual values and dignity must be protected. This is a comprehensive statement, but it begs the question, where is the Rohingya people's dignity?

Dignity for the Rohingya is possibly unthinkable. It may suffice to assume that the international human rights institutional structure is unfit for purpose and that its conception requires validation. As a result, the killing of Rohingya Muslims should not have occurred under the auspices of the UN Security Council. It is also possible to conclude that the current approach taken and witnessed at the United Nations Security Council demonstrates that the Council's conception is lacking in ethics and integrity.

Meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Future Challenges

The UN Security Council's future challenges include reaching a complete concession on the principle of humanity's universal good. As a result, rather than political will, I dare to speak first about the principle of the common good. The UN Security Council, in its current form, must be interpreted as a body devoid of ethics and integrity. To meet future challenges, people must be willing to maintain their commitment to the common good in the face of adversity.

This is not to say that there must be a threat or danger to the general good's peace and security, but that if adversity arises, the UNSC must continue to pursue the general good with ethics and integrity. However, difficulties may arise when attempting to attribute adversity and determining the amount of adversity that should be faced before making a concession.

When we try to raise human rights concerns about Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, this becomes critical. The UN Security Council and its ostensibly elitist members were unable to prevent the Russian invasion or persuade Russia to change course. As a result, the UN Security Council's inability to stop the invasion demonstrates three things: first, the UN Security Council lacks the capacity to address the issue of human rights protection; second, it is an outdated body; and third, it lacks ethics and integrity oversight. Let me elaborate on this point.

In theory, the UN Security Council can pass a resolution requiring all member states to carry out its mandate. Furthermore, Chapter VI of the Charter states that the UN Security Council has the authority to encourage all parties to settle their disputes peacefully and to propose measures to accomplish this. This is problematic because, if such a connotation is deliberately interpreted, the UN Security Council becomes the

judge and jury of its own actions. This is implausible and should be dismissed entirely. This rejection may also imply that the United Nations Charter should be validated based on the composition of twenty-first-century phenomena rather than a broad abstract of nineteenth-century war. In this form and substance, the UN Charter established a foundation for future peace and security, but it does not guarantee its achievement in future endeavours. As a result, an appropriate resolution will be to shake the Charter's core foundation in order for it to evolve.

Furthermore, on February 25, shortly after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council met to consider a resolution submitted by the United States and Albania to investigate the invasion as illegal and a violation of international law doctrine. The resolution also demanded that Russia cease hostilities against Ukraine and withdraw its troops from the country immediately. Adoption of a substantive resolution in the United Nations Security Council requires the endorsement vote of the Council's 15 members, as well as a concession vote, or abstention, of the Council's five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In light of Ukraine's invasion, all members voted in favour, while Russia voted against, effectively vetoing the resolution.

The resolution process and subsequent phase have become challenging. It is problematic in the sense that, given the ongoing conflict, allowing Russia to vote on this issue is unthinkable. This is a critical issue for the structures that the UN Security Council is supposed to protect. An independent adjudicator or a mechanism allowing the total suspension of any permanent member who has engaged in illegal warfare would be a suitable next step. Perhaps this approach will contribute to the restoration of ethics and integrity in UN Security Council operations.

In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations General Assembly, of which 193 countries are members, held a special emergency session on February 28, 2022, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 377 A(V), widely known as the "Uniting for Peace" (or U4P) resolution. This was the same resolution that was passed in 1950 to avoid Soviet vetoes in the United Nations Security Council during the Korean War. The U4P resolution outlines the steps the Assembly should take when the UN Security Council is paralysed by its own dysfunctional structures, specifically when the five permanent members fail to cooperate on an international peace and security issue.

In general, the Assembly's approach is thorough and deserves to be commended. A resolution in the Assembly, for example, requires two-thirds of all members present to vote. This includes those adopted via the U4P framework, which is only a suggestion and is not legally binding. It is important to note, however, that the General Assembly resolution carries political weight and represents the collective will of the UN Member States. The significance of this can be seen in the Assembly's approach when we discuss various obligations and commitments to the protection of human rights. As a result, I am convinced that the United Nations Security Council is a system of political and nuclear war. It is no longer legitimate and no longer serves the greater good.

To address issues such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and any future complications, a stronger framework is required. I will argue that, in addition to the Assembly and UNSC, a conflict resolution body should be established within these two institutions. This new, independent body should be given the legal authority to sanction states that fail to follow its recommendations. As a last resort, this sanction should include enforcement and possibly military intervention. However, this body must also manage interstate conflict in a way that does not jeopardise ethics and integrity for personal gain. This could be accomplished by combining two conflict management concepts, such as integrating, avoiding, obliging, and dominating.

Conclusion
Several binding treaties centred on state obligations and individual rights, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), have shaped international human rights law on both the international and regional levels (CERD). According to the, the burden of proof in 'human rights violations claims' is placed on entities because the relevant information (and expertise to understand it) is in the hands of the entities, not the victims.

As a result, it is assumed that applying ethics and integrity to accountability will result in an effective accountability system. This has not been the case, as the current concept of accountability has resulted in a "free for all" or justification for vengeance against victims of human rights violations. According to this interpretation, ethics and integrity do establish liability for states and other entities, and this liability extends to societal misconduct. However, there are risks involved.

According to the principle of ethics and integrity, if claimants can show that they were harmed (injured) as a result of the entity's activities (causation), the burden of proof shifts to the entity in question. Previously, perhaps dignity for the Rohingya people was unthinkable. If this is true, it is reasonable to conclude that the UN is as useless as a dead lion. It may suffice to assume that the international human rights institutional structure is unfit for purpose and that its conception requires validation.

As a result, the killing of Rohingya Muslims should not have occurred under the auspices of the UN Security Council. It is also possible to conclude that the current approach taken and witnessed at the United Nations Security Council demonstrates that the Council's conception is lacking in ethics and integrity.

The UN Security Council, a new independent body, should be given the legal authority to sanction states that fail to comply with the body's findings. As a last resort, this sanction should include enforcement and possibly military intervention. However, this body must also manage interstate conflict in a way that does not jeopardise ethics and integrity for personal gain. This could be accomplished by combining two conflict management concepts, such as integrating, avoiding, obliging, and dominating. We hope that the UN Security Council will be able to meet future challenges with an open-door policy and vision as a result of this developmental approach.