UN Security Council Reform

[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.

[Pindar]

Shall I chalk this up to Pann-God?

..?..

[Pindar]

I do not give a damn. the reason I do not give a damn is because I believe the real authority (as in the authority perceived by the 'defendant') wielded by the SC is that of its constituent members. I.e. the 'defendant' fears the consequences if he crosses the combined will of those state actors that compose the SC. Thus stems my belief that SC members must be able to project force, because otherwise a 'defendant' will feel free to act as they will against the wish of the SC.

That is about as far as I willing to pursue this pointless argument, pointless because we both have fundamentally different ideas on the derivation of authority, or imperium if you will.

You don't believe in human rights. You do not 'give a damn' about legitimacy. You don't believe the UN has any moral authority. As to the collective security idea you seem to proffer: decades of UN impotence apparently undercut that notion. The Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of Cambodia, or the millions who have died in the new Congo 'civil war' are simple illustrations of the power/efficacy of the SC's force projection. Your position has rejected any moral grounding, rejected any jurisprudential grounding, fails on a practical level and see any pointing out of these rather obvious failings as ridiculous and/or pointless arguments. This doesn't leave much to work with.

[JR-]

what does human rights have to do with this?

[JR-]

explain?

[Pindar]

I think I can live with a fundamentally illegitimate UN whose decisions are illegitimate and entirely unfounded on moral principles, as long as it successfully muddles its way through life and helps the big countries, one way or another, to avoid big arguments. My country wasn't founded on some great principled constitution, yet it did well enough, bumbling its way through history.

Yes, some believe legitimacy and morality are important, others do not. Some believe in a "peace in our time" approach as long as they aren't the Czechs, others do not.

[Pindar]

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

Both. The primary focus has been the ideological absurdity. I then argued this impacts the practical arena.

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.

The problem is there are nations antithetical to democratic ideals in critical positions of power. If one wants a forum where totalitarian regimes can spew their rhetoric, those regimes should at least be unable to thwart the good that could and should be done by free peoples.

[Pindar]

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?

It is of no import regarding any claim to UN legitimacy.

[Pannonian]

Yes, some believe legitimacy and morality are important, others do not. Some believe in a "peace in our time" approach as long as they aren't the Czechs, others do not.

Shall I chalk this up to Pann-God?

[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.