Wikipedia describes the Law of Unintended Consequences,
This maxim is not a scientific law; it is more in line with Murphy's law as a warning against the false belief that we can control the world around us. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, which will invariably include at least one side effect that is more significant than any of the intended effects.I think of this when I think of UNICEF. You see, UNICEF, which is a program of the United Nations, is trying to convince the world that it is in orphans' best interest to remain in their own culture, if possible. Intercountry adoptions are discouraged if there are viable domestic alternatives. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The problem comes when there are insufficient options in the childrens' home country.
In Ukraine's case, I have seen estimates that there are about 100,000 children in orphanages. So I can understand UNICEF going into Ukraine and encouraging them to develop programs to increase domestic adoptions, and possibly to develop a foster care system. But while these are good ideas, is it really necessary to almost completely cut off international adoptions? Those kinds of initiatives take time to create. Why not do all that in addition to maintaining the past levels of international adoptions? The unintended consequence of what seems like UNICEF's good intentions is that 98,000 kids will remain in orphanages this year with 0 chance of being adopted.
Newsweek has an interesting article called When There's No Place Like Home that kind of explains the two sides of the issue. Also, take a look at the reader comments at the end.