she hacked youMar 2

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

Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@ekis

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

Show threadJan AntošMar 2
@benroyce and no VETO.
Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@janantos

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

Show threadJan AntošMar 2
@benroyce thats why no veto but qualified majority
Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@janantos

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

Show threadJan AntošMar 2
@benroyce and you need to look in it from opposite site, almost in every corner of Earth there is some territorial border dispute. One veto -> same problem as current UN and very similar the same issue in the EU. Thats my point. When bad actor or even some sort of supporting country does have VETO, you have the same problem as now, except more parties can veto -> not solving anything. Thats the reason why I would opt for qualified majority (whatever ratio it means )
Show threadJan AntošMar 2

@benroyce here is a very long list of disputes, btw even your proposed Brasil does have at least one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia

Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@janantos

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

Show threadJan Antoš
@benroyce ignore or veto the results is the same, except with veto you are making it legal/legitimate which is maybe even worse.
Mar 2 at 9:31pmWeb
Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@janantos

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

Show threadJan AntošMar 2
@benroyce for sure. Security council can be alternated by ICC, hold on, a lot of countries does not recognise ICC at all, and some even have laws, claiming they can invade Netherlands in case ICC is criminally charging their politicians (yes I am talking about you USA)
Show threadᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIESMar 2

@janantos

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