UN flexes its muscles for Gaza peace. Can it succeed?

Toothless resolutions. Empty rhetoric. Impotent bystander. All are charges often made of the United Nations and its ability to step in during an international crisis.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has finally had enough of shouting from the sidelines about the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza. He unleashed a diplomatic tool last used in 1971 during a conflict that resulted in the birth of Bangladesh. By invoking Article 99 from the UN charter, he is forcing the Israel-Hamas war onto the Security Council's plate.

However, use of the article has had mixed results in the past, and has never really brought peace. At best, it allows a UN secretary general to force discussions among countries, irrespective of how powerful they are, but cannot force action nor can it go past a veto by any of the five permanent members.

In response to the letter, the United Arab Emirates plans to introduce a Security Council resolution Friday that would call for an immediate cease-fire, according to two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. The proposal would call on all parties to comply with their obligations under international law.

Guterres sent the letter asking immediate ceasefire under Article 99 of the UN's charter, which allows the secretary-general to bring any issue seen as threatening international peace to the Security Council's attention, the UN said.

Absent a cease-fire within days, public order will break down completely, Guterres said. The situation is already catastrophic with over 16,000 Palestinians killed and well over 80% displaced in the Gaza Strip.

One would have to go back to the Arab uprisings more than a decade ago to try and unpack the UN's controversial role as an arbiter of peace in the Middle East. Back then, the Security Council voted in favour of military intervention in Libya to protect civilians.

Russia regretted its abstention and President Vladimir Putin has used it as an example of why the West cannot be trusted, saying the resolution was but a thinly disguised ploy to enact regime change and topple Muammar Qaddafi.

Ever since then, the UN decision-making body has pretty much failed to agree on anything. Something has started to shift.

The US has been frustrated by Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas and worries about the mounting death toll. Typically, its role in the UN has been to protect its ally from criticism but last month it withheld its veto to let a resolution pass calling for a humanitarian pause.

Israel has made clear its disdain for the UN and Guterres. It views the multilateral organisation as stacked with Arab voices and deeply partisan to the Palestinian cause. It's called on the UN chief to resign. Gilad Erdan, Israel's ambassador to the UN, accused the secretary general of reaching "a new moral low" following the release of the letter. The days ahead will reveal to what extent Guterres acted alone or whether he coordinated with the US.

Either way, the UN is having a moment.

Will it work?

Guterres has been calling for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" since 18 October. But the Security Council is yet to adopt a resolution calling for a ceasefire, amid differences between permanent members. The United States, Israel's chief backer, has vetoed a resolution, while Russia, more critical of Israel, has blocked another one.

However, Article 99 gives special power, and is the only independent political tool given to the secretary-general in the UN Charter. It allows him to call a meeting of the Security Council on his own initiative to issue warnings about new threats to international peace and security and matters that are not yet on the council's agenda.

Now Guterres will have the right to speak at the Security Council, without having to be invited to speak by a member state, as is usually the case.

Considered the UN's most powerful body, the 15-member Security Council is tasked with maintaining international peace and security. If it chooses to act on Guterres's advice and adopt a ceasefire resolution then yes. It will have additional powers at its disposal to ensure the resolution is implemented, including the power to impose sanctions or authorise the deployment of an international force.

But it doesn't give Guterres any powers to force the Security Council to adopt a resolution.

Anthony Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera: "He can force a discussion, he can bring the parties together and encourage them to reach some kind of compromise. But because of the veto at the Security Council, the only way the Security Council can adopt a substantive resolution on this issue is for each of the five permanent members to choose not to veto it."

China, Russia, the US, the UK and France – hold this veto power.

The US used their veto on 18 October against a resolution that would have condemned Hamas's attack on Israel while calling for a pause in the fighting to allow humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Twelve other council members voted in favour, while Russia and the UK abstained.

The Article 99 was initially designed as a preventative tool, a bit like a warning system. Its use was meant to deter conflicts from escalating, but as in the war on Gaza, the article has also been used after conflicts had already escalated.

"The fact that this tool has not been used since 1989 does resonate diplomatically and symbolically here in New York," Daniel Forti, a senior analyst on UN advocacy and research at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.