Countries should consider creating a new United Nations without 'veto power'

[Craig234]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Nations represent people. If China or India have the same voting power as Tuvalu or Vatican City, the new UN would be grossly nonrepresentational. It would have the same problems as the current General Assembly: the vote of small nations is easily bought.

 

[Rumpel]

and who should do that?

 

[Mycroft]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

How would any such organization enforce an "international law" that they created? Can you give an example of how that would work?

 

[Craig234]

and who should do that?

China, Iran, Palestine, all of Central and South America, all of Africa, the rest of Asia, Scandinavian states, Russia, all Arab states and the rest of the Middle East, for a start - in short, everyone should but those most beholden to the US would probably be the last.

 

[Peacenik]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

I have had the same exact thought.

Call it the World Union.

 

[joluoto]

Just get rid of the Security Council and empower the General Assembly.

 

[Craig234]

Just get rid of the Security Council and empower the General Assembly.

Can't happen, because the veto countries can block the changes.

 

[Juin]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

Wont that be the League of Nations all over again?

 

[Craig234]

Wont that be the League of Nations all over again?

Yes and no. I don't see that as mattering though. Unlike the league, this will be created to not necessarily include the US, to represent a world different than it was with the League for the 'American Century'. The US has squandered that leadership.

 

[BirdinHand]

Good luck with that.

Who is going to fund it?

The US alone funds more than 22% of the UN general funding/operations and more than 25% of all peace keeping operations.

You think we are going to give any organization that much funding without strings attached?

Or that your “new UN” will be able to fund itself without the US investment?

 

[BirdinHand]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

When you pay the bills, you make the rules.

The US funds the UN more individually than any other nation on the planet.

WHO is paying the bills without the US? And why the hell would we fund the UN and not get extra privileges for doing so?

Let’s see someone else step up and pay the bills. Then they can have the veto instead.

 

[Juin]

When you pay the bills, you make the rules.

The US funds the UN more individually than any other nation on the planet.

WHO is paying the bills without the US? And why the hell would we fund the UN and not get extra privileges for doing so?

Let’s see someone else step up and pay the bills. Then they can have the veto instead.

Who pays the piper calls the tunes

 

[BirdinHand]

Who pays the piper calls the tunes

Yeah, I don’t see anyone else rushing to open their checkbook.

 

[BirdinHand]

It’s funny…tons of complaints about how the UNRWA can’t operate because it’s lacking US funds…how it’s horrific.

Next breath is talk of a “UN” without a US (and US $$$)

Which one is it? Are our funds needed or aren’t they? (That’s irresponsible stewardship of American tax dollars, isn’t it?)

Or wait…you want our money, but not the US to have a say in where that money goes? . That’s funny. That’s not how it works.

But I’m sure we could find TONS of ways to spend that money domestically if they don’t want the strings that come attached to it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

Your alternate globohomo nations wouldn’t have any legitimacy at all. It would be like the League of Nations, a club that can do nothing but bark

 

[Gatsby]

A majority of times the US has used its 'veto power' in the UN security council have been to protect one country, Israel, from the condemnation from the rest of the world.

What does international law mean when any enforcement of it can be blocked by one country with a 'veto power'? The same applies to the inability to act against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of any action China which China could just veto.

The rest of the world, the large majority, could form a new United Nations, modelled on the first, except without the 'above the law' treatment of the powerful countries. It would be more like the general assembly.

I suspect most countries would be happy to join that one - and may or may not keep their membership in the current one. The US could join or not, but it would be marginalized if it did not, without a voice.

That new United Nations, with a large majority of the world, could gain legitimacy as the more representative organization. In the face of the utter flouting and violation of international law under the current organization, it seems something they should consider. The US has forfeited the trust placed in it, making the UN useless for anything veto nations oppose as it is.

What's the point of a UN-type organization that doesn't include some of the world's most powerful countries? The League of Nations fell apart for precisely that reason.

 

[Fabiusbile]

It's funny to read all this... international law has never been a real law. These have always been gentlemen's agreements. No more, no less.
No sovereign nation will ever recognize the primacy of any organization there... otherwise, there is no sovereignty.
Yes, today somehow... well... It is strange to talk about the creation of a new UN. A new Big Game has begun / Cold War 2.0 / call it what you want... The pieces are on the board and some of the pieces have already been removed, blood has already been shed.
Alas, until the events are over and the winner is revealed, no one will negotiate a new world order... we are just at the stage when the old rules are being violated. The game has started, we are just at the very beginning.

 

[reinaert]

While we're snipe hunting, we should also establish a yearly conference to solve pollution and ecological collapse...

 

[Quag]

Yes and no. I don't see that as mattering though. Unlike the league, this will be created to not necessarily include the US, to represent a world different than it was with the League for the 'American Century'. The US has squandered that leadership.

Huh?
Please explain as the USA was never a member of the league

 

[Craig234]

Please explain as the USA was never a member of the league

As I said, the world has changed a lot. The League was created by the US as the US was becoming the world's greatest power. The US not joining it hurt it very much and it was disbanded. This would be different, in a different situation, where it doesn't need the US to join.

 

[Quag]

As I said, the world has changed a lot. The League was created by the US as the US was becoming the world's greatest power. The US not joining it hurt it very much and it was disbanded. This would be different, in a different situation, where it doesn't need the US to join.

My question was that your post implied the league was an American league without the US being part of it I didnt see how that made sense.
Still I dont see how another league or UN without the US would accomplish anything.

 

[Craig234]

My question was that your post implied the league was an American league without the US being part of it I didnt see how that made sense.

It was; Woodrow Wilson envisioned and created it, but when it came time for Congress to vote to join it, they refused.

Still I dont see how another league or UN without the US would accomplish anything.

Well, if the OP didn't answer that, I don't see it'll help to repeat what it says. I type 'the world has changed' and suspect you read that as 'gehgruigyergiuyeruigueriguyegueyrg'.

 

[Quag]

It was; Woodrow Wilson envisioned and created it, but when it came time for Congress to vote to join it, they refused.

Yes it was Wilsons idea but as the USA was never a member it cannot be considered an American league, perhaps American inspired?

Well, if the OP didn't answer that, I don't see it'll help to repeat what it says. I type 'the world has changed' and suspect you read that as 'gehgruigyergiuyeruigueriguyegueyrg'.

Actually one of the failings of the league was that the USA was not part of it. but I suppose if you think I was trying to be insulting rather than actually questioning then that is what you will read into my posts regardless of what they actually say

 

[Craig234]

Yes it was Wilsons idea but as the USA was never a member it cannot be considered an American league, perhaps American inspired?

It sounds like a semantic issue. It was initiated by the US.

Actually one of the failings of the league was that the USA was not part of it. but I suppose if you think I was trying to be insulting rather than actually questioning then that is what you will read into my posts regardless of what they actually say

I didn't think that, I was just saying I think the OP had already answered your question about how a new league can do a lot whether or not the US joins.