Abstract Between 1938 and 1945, when World War II was devouring international peace and security, and the Allies were busy confronting the aggressions of the German Wehrmacht, the Italian fascist government, and the Japanese warmongers, conferences titled the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Declaration, the Yalta Conference, San Francisco, and Moscow were being held to adopt common international policies to confront the aforementioned aggressors, and to prepare for the formation of a world organization that would both safeguard international peace and security and protect the rights of the victors of World War II in various ways, especially the right of veto. And so it was, and a charter was approved whose articles were in conflict with each other, but since it served the interests of the superpowers, it practically played the role of the constitution of the international community and became the standard for the peace-seeking of governments. At the same time, inequality in rights and benefits caused countries to have little trust in this international institution in the political field despite the end of World War II and to have little cooperation with it. In addition, many of the resolutions of this international organization had the character of recommendations, and the impression was created that the Charter was quite successful in separating the international legal system into two forms: the international legal system of developed countries and the international legal system of developing countries. With this description, it seems that some countries are not adhering to their obligations and responsibilities towards the international community, and other countries should be agents of all international obligations and responsibilities and unconditionally obey the Charter.