You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
The Nuremberg trials laid out a very simple idea: the supreme international crime is launching a war of aggression
The UN security council must be rebuilt from the ground up
UN must be wrestled from US control, it must not be allowed to use it as just another weapon, and we must work towards an actual system of international law, one where we are actually equal. the other option is global war
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
but how?
say brazil has a seat and brazil vetoes a decision but their veto is ignored and this greatly upsets brazil
this CREATES conflict
you missed my point
1. if the regional powers don't get a veto, they won't buy in and there is no new UN
2. even if such a new UN came to pass, if you overrule a regional power they just ignore the UN. and the UN is not going to convince any country to expend much blood and treasure to go to the other side of the world and convince the regional power to conform
on issues of significance far away, not a problem. on issues near the regional power, their will dominates over the UN
i have zero argument
without the UN you have bullies picking on smaller countries
with the UN, you have bullies picking on smaller countries, codified into UN procedures
so there is no difference. this problem we're complaining about is not solved by the UN
it's just that the UN carries other benefits outside of this topic
but don't you see then you're creating conflict rather than resolving it?
if you have a UN force running around the world fighting with regional powers, this isnt an improvement over our current shitty situation, it's worse
nevermind who is manning this UN army?
no country can explain to its citizens why its soldiers are dying halfway around the world in a conflict they don't even understand
well, that's the USA 😩
but as you can see, that's a poor model
i totally understand that
and the UN is neutered now
but in the scenario you describe it is also neutered. because there is no capacity or will to enforce the resolution. and the recalcitrant country, that would have vetoed but is now overruled, will just ignore the resolution
so the scenario you describe is a UN that writes angry letters and the malicious of the world just laugh
sorry to be a cynic, but all that means is we reemerge the same some 10,000s of years from now
the thing to do is not be despondent, and keep improving, even if the effort is large and the payout is small
the fact we are even talking about the existence of something like a UN shows we are making progress (vanishingly small and painfully slow)
@benroyce here is a very long list of disputes, btw even your proposed Brasil does have at least one
right. they're everywhere
and so you can't do majority only
the regional power will just ignore the vote
and no one has the will or the capacity to force the regional power to comply
so you've essentially neutered the UN more than it even is by removing the veto
the UN just has to be a place for powers to meet
howabout a UN without a security council at all?
so all the good other topics UN does, and just avoid this issue entirely since we can't find a solution
exactly, it's a farce
you get bright spots like duterte of the philippines hauled before the court
but so the ICC only applies to middle and small powers
while large powers still act with impunity, and they are the largest defilers
she hacked you
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Jan Antoš