While selectively applying the vertical application of international law via the UNSC platform; yet deliberately ignoring the horizontal application of the UN’s law via UNGA forum, the UN sets a glaring contradiction in its mechanism. By going through the UN’s Charter, one finds sufficient reason to believe that the UN’s moral position-because of its unwarranted delay in intervening in the current Kashmir situation-has beenlargely compromised and dented up to the hilt.Truly, in Kashmir, the international community has a profound responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In the words of Indi’s secular humanist Arundhati Roy: ‘India’s moral position on Kashmir has never, ever been a moral position. It is a kind of moral corrosion that has corroded all of us. And now, now the world is looking at it”. In his address to the 74th UNGA, Malaysian PM Mohamad Mahathir said: “Now, despite the UN resolution on Jammu and Kashmir, the country has been invaded and occupied.” The truth is that the UN’s endorsed principle of responsibility to protect must be implemented in Kashmir.Despite the fact that among the greatest achievements of the United Nations in the development of a body of international law-conventions, treaties and standards-central to promoting economic and social development, as well as to advancing international peace and security, the UN still faces challenges regarding the uniformity of its laws in terms of dispute settlement, exclusively in the Kashmir case. Some of the experts may argue that the UN has special limitations as a peace custodian. Although it possesses formal authority, its agent on the ground (the special representative of the secretary-general) is constrained by the direction and will of the UNSC. The special representatives must borrow leverage through coalition building; their ability to induce or punish, even their ability to rule credibly on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of demands, depends on the support of member states. In some cases, such as the ‘Salvadoran and Cambodian’ peace processes, the UN relied on groups of friends-formal associations of all member states.The Charter of the United Nations exclusively directs the Organization to help in the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, including arbitration and judicial settlement (Article 33), and to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification (Article 13).The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is the forum of adopting multilateral treatise, for the last several decades, more than 500 multilateral treaties have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Underthe Charter, the General Assembly (GA) can establish an international administration upon the approval of the concerned State. The General Assembly has the right to discuss any question Article 6 of the Charter authorizes the Council to recommend procedures and methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes with the consent of the State concerned. It must be noted that the Security Council is prohibited from taking action that interferes with the internal jurisdiction of the State, except with the explicit consent of the State or when the Security Council acts under Chapter VII in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. Veritably, theChapter VII of the Charter authorizes the Security Council to enforce arrangements to settle international disputes without the consent of the State concerned and by coercive means, both military and non-military, whenever the situation constitutes any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Here, the Council can establish international administration based on three legal rules [2]. UN member nations need some introspection as to why the Security Council is “reluctant” to refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice The doctrine of’R2P’ holds states responsible for shielding their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity, requiring the international community to step in. Indeed, the United Nations doctrine of the principle of ‘responsibility to protect,’ the international understanding to intervene to stop atrocities from taking place-adopted at the 2005 World Summit. All the heads of state and government at the 2005 World Summit, without reservation, committed to the doctrine, and subsequent unanimous adoptions of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions reaffirmed the principle. Interestingly, the UNSC has reaffirmed its commitment to the R2P in more than 80 resolutions. But how paradoxical it seems that the doctrine of ‘R2P’ can be invoked in Syrian, Libya, Burundi, Darfur and Yemen, but it cannot be implemented in Kashmir.The UN must acknowledge: Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute between two nuclear-armed states; rather it is a question of humanity, freedom and power of enfranchisement for Kashmiris in terms of their cultural, legal, political and civic dignity. The President of the UNGA has also the authority to table the said doctrine.Isn’t the time that the Secretary- General AntónioGuterres , brings the situation in Kashmir to the attention of the Security Council under the provision of Article 99 of the UN’s Charter?Article 99authorises the secretary-general to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. What else, there be any truths or reconciliations, recognition of the pain and suffering of each other as Kashmiris, solidarity and creation of processes to speak to each other in order to realise a future of peace and freedom– multiplying the representation of voices within a framework of trustworthy mediated dialogue via the UN or the neutral third party mediation from the US, China, Russia and EU (honouring of principles of human rights and self-determination, move towards alternative media that allows for honest understanding of issues in all their complexity, growing of the voices that speak for justice and humanity, and the writing of many, many stories that can be heard by those who need to empathise. “Isn’t it our collective and solemn duty to keep the promises made to them through numerous resolutions of this body? How can this body command the respect it deserves if its own edicts are flouted?” she said. UN member nations need some introspection as to why the Security Council is “reluctant” to refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice. “And if we have no credible answers to these questions except the imperatives of realpolitik, the world at large will view the United Nations as little more than a political tool in the hand of the powerful few. This impression would hardly inspire trust,” Pakistan Representative to the UN DrMalehaLodhi rightly argued. The Indian notion of maintaining Kashmir’s territorial status quo –is far away from the transcending global view on Kashmir entailed by the emerging ground realities of Kashmir-is not a solution that protects Kashmiris’ right to self-determination guaranteed under the UN’s Charter. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan