UN Security Council Reform

[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.

[JR-]

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

ahh, UN legitimacy you say........................

this despite the fact that the discussion based on a comment outlining why I thought the SC commanded authority, to wit:

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.

There is no moral authority in my mind to the UN, it merely serves as a forum for decision on action necessary by sovereign nation states.

i then further elaborated on why i hold the view that i do on the importance of the SC:

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.

then in the face of your refusal to accept the reasons why I consider the SC important, i attempted further clarification:

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!".

by this point you might imagine that i had clearly elucidated my carefree attitude towards the innate authority of the UN, as opposed to my immense respect for the authority of those state actors that can impose their will for the betterment of all, but no. thus i attempted to spell out exactly that:

"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......

to which, inexplicably, the ridiculous argument carried on, a fact which led me to believe that you mistook my position as ignorance of the legal definition of UN derived authority, and thus was attempted this explanation:

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.

but now we get to the crux, at last! you point out quite correctly from a legal standpoint:

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

To which I will finally say:
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.

[Pannonian]

To which I will finally say:
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.

Hence my reply in post #89 which you queried in post #94. To someone who is determined to argue that the UN's authority is based on legalisms and not the willingness of the big boys to put the boot in, there is no adequate response but to laugh.

[JR-]

do i sense agreement? :D

[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?