UN Security Council Reform

[Pindar]

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

[Pindar]

The Society of Nations that was formed after WWI failed within twenty year in its main purpose, the prevention of a new world war. This was in no small part owing to the non-membership of the US, the short-lived membership of the SU, and the withdrawl of Japan and Germany.

The League of Nations did fail. Its failure does not change the illegitimacy of the UN.

[Pindar]

I think the UN did what it was meant to...stop all out war between the big nations.

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

[Pindar]

The cold war was prevented from becoming hot very much in part becuase of the UN. It allowed both the USSR and the USA to meet on even ground. Without that pressure valve we would more then likely be posting on a server located in a bunker.

Neither the Kremlin's nor Washington's geo-political nuclear policy was determined or altered in any way by the UN. Had the USSR's tanks rolled across the line between East and West Germany there would have been war.

Diplomacy may predate the UN, but the world having a place to meet and discuss matters does not.

The world does not do so now, simple case in point: Taiwan.

[Conradus]

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

[Pindar]

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

[Conradus]

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that. And it showed they could do more than the League who could do nothing when one country invaded another.

[rory_20_uk]

So when one of the 5 countries leaves the UN - who could have blocked it - the UN then works as America and allies go to war wearing a different helmet?

The league was truer to its principles and countries didn't use it as cover to do what they wanted. Warmongers have the decency to be honest and ignore the League rather than subvert it.

[Pindar]

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that.

Demonstrate the causal link where the UN determined US and USSR policy after military action commenced.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault...

[Pindar]

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault...

"I did not have sex with that woman."

[JR-]

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

[Pindar]

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

I don't think I mixed anything up. Your first comment is a categorical: you do not believe in fundamental human rights. The second comment is concerned with the authority of the UN. The third comment qualifies your support for the UNSC. Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

[JR-]

Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

[Pindar]

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

It is not a presupposition that the Security Council derives its authority from the larger UN. This is obvious.

Edicts from a position of power and edicts from an authority are not the same. Rejecting any authoritative appeal means the UN is quite irrelevant as has been explained.

The "take us very seriously or bad things will happen" approach where effect is the focus has nothing to do with legitimacy. Rather, it is a statement that carries force given the author: the more powerful the more weight. This is distinct from any authority appeal. If this is the model then it eviscerates the UN completely.

[JR-]

It is not a presupposition that the Security Council derives its authority from the larger UN. This is obvious. Edicts from a position of power and edicts from an authority are not the same. Rejecting any authoritative appeal means the UN is quite irrelevant as has been explained.

The "take us very seriously or bad things will happen" approach where effect is the focus has nothing to do with legitimacy. Rather, it is a statement that carries force given the author: the more powerful the more weight. This is distinct from any authority appeal. If this is the model then it eviscerates the UN completely.

"in my opinion" is the key to this phrase, as in; I don't believe the SC derives its authority/force from its UN'iness.

the seriousness with which SC edicts are taken by the receiving party are directly proportionate the ability of the SC members to 'mess-them-up', and the likely hood that such force will be applied by SC members.

if the SC was composed of Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, and China, do you think we would have had more or perhaps less co-operation from iran on the current nuclear stand-off?
personally, i believe iran would be laughing, but that's just me......

[Pindar]

"in my opinion" is the key to this phrase, as in; I don't believe the SC derives its authority/force from its UN'iness.

Your opinion would be wrong as authority is not sui generis. For the Security Council any authority claim is a product of, and dependant on, the UN which is its source.