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.

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.

[Pannonian]

"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......

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pindar, is your position based on ideological and moral, or practical considerations? Both?

I argued, with the example of the failure of the League of nations in mind, that practical considerations should override moral objections in this respect. There should indeed be a platform for discussion between all parties that have a fundamental commitment to popular sovereignty and liberty.
Since not all countries in this world share that outlook, including some powerful ones, there should also be a platform for discussion that includes these countries too.
It undermines the legitimacy of the UN in principle, yes. But strategically? The hope is, that in the long run, as long as the UN accepts its own democratic ideals and principles, the spread of liberal democracy will benefit from the UN's function and institutions. Meanwhile helping towards avoiding major conflict and upholding a basic rule of law in international relations.

[JR-]

explain?

[JR-]

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.

so the fact that the SC is composed of five of the most powerful nations on earth is of no import?

n.b. at no time am i denying any complex legal definition that defines the SC's authority as solely deriving from the UN, however, i simply don't care. what does matter to me is that a SC edict is the consensus will of the most powerful nations on earth.