How would you reform the UN?

[Hannibal Lector Society]

Give it actual authority (a small globally elected legislative body) and a small standing army.

exactly

[L Ron Cupboard]

To me it is the Security Council that needs reforming to have much wider membership. The logic for the current permanent members seems outdated. I would rather see the security council membership made up of say the top thirty countries by population.

The first ten countries count for more than four billion people.

The current exclusion of India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. just seems silly when you have Luxembourg as a non-permanent member.

[The Grim Reaper]

The first ten countries count for more than four billion people.

The current exclusion of India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. just seems silly when you have Luxembourg as a non-permanent member.

Hell, the exclusion of India almost seems ridiculous compared to the inclusion of the UK and France.

[L Ron Cupboard]

The current exclusion of India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. just seems silly when you have Luxembourg as a non-permanent member.

Hell, the exclusion of India almost seems ridiculous compared to the inclusion of the UK and France.

I agree, even as someone from the UK.

[Adiedren]

Really, i'd just give it some actual power. Right now it's nothing

[Republic of Coldwater]

Based on my limited experience in Model UN, take away the vetoes. It's hard enough getting a majority to agree with a resolution, than to also have five nations that hate one another all agree on the same thing as well.

That is only in Security Council, but I do agree that Vetoes can really compromise the democratic structure that the UN was founded on.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Abolish the UN. It is ineffective in alleviating situations across the world due to the lack of power, and if they are granted more power, there will be conflicts with national sovereignty, and that would once again render the UN ineffective. Overall, abolishing the UN is the only thing that can be done as it is largely useless and ineffective.

[Rephesus]

Abolish the UN. It is ineffective in alleviating situations across the world due to the lack of power, and if they are granted more power, there will be conflicts with national sovereignty, and that would once again render the UN ineffective. Overall, abolishing the UN is the only thing that can be done as it is largely useless and ineffective.

So let's abolish the primary source for international dialogue and mediation? Let's abolish the largest intergovernmental organization in the world that is responsible for funding countless refugee and humanitarian missions, let's abolish the organization that is one of the primary reasons we all aren't bigoted nationalists?

[Aeternabilis]

Abolish either the permanent memberships or just the veto powers. The world is getting screwed over to protect the interests of the winners of a war that occurred 70 years ago. Also, give it a good sized army made of volunteers so they can go in and actually enforce peace rather than relying on foreign armies and letting things get worse.

[The Sotoan Union]

I would definitely change the veto system, but the veto system is still important. Without it the UN could just do whatever the more prominent members wanted it to do. I just think the temporary members of the security council should have more power.

[The Sotoan Union]

Abolish either the permanent memberships or just the veto powers. The world is getting screwed over to protect the interests of the winners of a war that occurred 70 years ago. Also, give it a good sized army made of volunteers so they can go in and actually enforce peace rather than relying on foreign armies and letting things get worse.

Where would these volunteers come from if not from foreign armies?

[Republic of Coldwater]

Abolish the UN. It is ineffective in alleviating situations across the world due to the lack of power, and if they are granted more power, there will be conflicts with national sovereignty, and that would once again render the UN ineffective. Overall, abolishing the UN is the only thing that can be done as it is largely useless and ineffective.

So let's abolish the primary source for international dialogue and mediation? Let's abolish the largest intergovernmental organization in the world that is responsible for funding countless refugee and humanitarian missions, let's abolish the organization that is one of the primary reasons we all aren't bigoted nationalists?

There are better ways for international dialogue, and that doesn't mean this gargantuan organization that does WAYYY more than that. An intergovernmental organization doesn't have to so big, and differing interests between nations really make it hard for it to operate as an effective one. They have resolutions that ask for funding, you can still turn down the offer. The UN's intrusions on each nation's freedom probably increases zealous nationalism.

[Blazedtown]

Maybe not kick out per se, but remove recognition. It's the same reason South Ossetia, Transnistia, and NKR aren't recognized. (Except they atleast are more legit than NK). Personally I believe de facto states should have delegations, but not recognition. North Korea should be considered a de facto state and personally I don't understand why the UN would recognize them in the first place (Cold War politics I assume)

What is your basis for not recognizing North Korea? After World War II, the UN partitioned Korea (then a Japanese colony) into North and South, which were administered by the USSR and US, respectively, until 1948 when they became independent.

Because North Korea is a totalitarian hellhole, it basically a giant gulag that stretches from the 38th Parallel to the Yalu River. Its not a country, its a prison camp.

[Luziyca]

I think it should be a bit like the WA: unless if in the SC, the permanent members veto it, all members should follow UN resolutions that are approved by a majority.

[The Sotoan Union]

I think it should be a bit like the WA: unless if in the SC, the permanent members veto it, all members should follow UN resolutions that are approved by a majority.

Well mob rule isn't really fair. At that point the UN would just be an extension of NATO most of the time.

[Luziyca]

I think it should be a bit like the WA: unless if in the SC, the permanent members veto it, all members should follow UN resolutions that are approved by a majority.

Well mob rule isn't really fair. At that point the UN would just be an extension of NATO most of the time.

Well, for human rights conventions like the Right of the Child, the USA and Somalia can finally have to follow it.

[Aeternabilis]

Abolish either the permanent memberships or just the veto powers. The world is getting screwed over to protect the interests of the winners of a war that occurred 70 years ago. Also, give it a good sized army made of volunteers so they can go in and actually enforce peace rather than relying on foreign armies and letting things get worse.

Where would these volunteers come from if not from foreign armies?

What I mean is volunteers could come from civilian population or the various militaries. But, the UN army would have full authority over it, and the nations from where the volunteers came from have little to no sway over them.

[The Sotoan Union]

Well mob rule isn't really fair. At that point the UN would just be an extension of NATO most of the time.

Well, for human rights conventions like the Right of the Child, the USA and Somalia can finally have to follow it.

Well lets say the UN makes a resolution to bomb Syria and Russia can't do anything about it. Then the UN says the states not recognized as nuclear powers have to give up their nukes. Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea can't do anything about it.

If these countries can't do anything about UN resolutions, if they don't really have representation and authority, they are probably just going to leave.

[Murkwood]

Based on my limited experience in Model UN, take away the vetoes. It's hard enough getting a majority to agree with a resolution, than to also have five nations that hate one another all agree on the same thing as well.

You'll never get the UNSC on board for that.

[Murkwood]

I think it should be a bit like the WA: unless if in the SC, the permanent members veto it, all members should follow UN resolutions that are approved by a majority.

What about the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution? Should Israel be obliged to follow that?

[Benuty]

I think it should be a bit like the WA: unless if in the SC, the permanent members veto it, all members should follow UN resolutions that are approved by a majority.

What about the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution? Should Israel be obliged to follow that?

It would only count if the US didn't "shit" on its bully pulpit so much they scrapped it.

Besides the US needs to go back to funding death squads so I can keep suing them .

[Murkwood]

What about the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution? Should Israel be obliged to follow that?

It would only count if the US didn't "shit" on its bully pulpit so much they scrapped it.

Besides the US needs to go back to funding death squads so I can keep suing them .

That's not the point. Would Israel be obliged to agree just becomes the UN voted?

[Vecherd]

Turn the UN office into a brothel and abolish the non-brothel parts.

[Benuty]

It would only count if the US didn't "shit" on its bully pulpit so much they scrapped it.

Besides the US needs to go back to funding death squads so I can keep suing them .

That's not the point. Would Israel be obliged to agree just becomes the UN voted?

Given the vast amount of Cherry picking probably not.

[Murkwood]

That's not the point. Would Israel be obliged to agree just becomes the UN voted?

Given the vast amount of Cherry picking probably not.

So the idea that everyone has to follow the resolutions is stupid!