It's well known that the UN is plagued by numerous difficulties. The task of promoting international peace and goodwill is not an easy one.
The United Nations, like the NS-verse, is divided into regions. The five UN regions are the Asia-Pacific Group (of which China is a member), the Eastern European Group (the smallest, and of which Russia is a member), the African Group (the largest), the Latin American and Caribbean Group, and the Western Europe and Others Group (which, not content with containing Britain and France, includes the United States!)
Clearly this is an inequitable distribution of power. While two UN regions, including the largest of them in terms of member states, have no permanent representation in the Security Council, the second smallest UN region has THREE vetoes!
While Article 27 section 3 (the "veto clause") reads in the English version as "Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting." vetoes by parties to disputes have been honoured and constitute perhaps the most outrageous category of abuse of the veto.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-c ... etoes.html This link is outdated as it does not reference vetoes cast after 2009 (the infamous Russian veto of a resolution censuring Russia for its invasion of Crimea in 2014 or so doesn't show here) and while I'm intentionally ignoring my own country's infamous habit of abusing the veto to cover Israeli excesses as I don't want to turn this into an Israel thread and am focusing on vetoes cast by parties to disputes, the US search of the Nicaraguan Ambassador's home in Panama in violation of international law was referred to the Security Council... and vetoed. In fact 1984-1986 record several US vetoes cast in response to Nicaraguan complaints including two where the International Court of Justice had already ruled in Nicaragua's favour! The United States is not a force for international security and stability, stopping only resolutions that would promote violations of international law, but a corrupt admin ruthlessly exploiting every means to avoid any accountability to the greater global community.
Some advocates of UNSC reform call for adding the G4 (Germany, Brazil, India and Japan) to the permanent membership but 1. Adding Germany will give the WEOG *FOUR* vetoes! Not since 1954 when the Soviet Union sought to join NATO was the veto faced with the prospect of such concentration. 2. While adding Brazil will give the Latin American group a veto it will do nothing for the largest, the African Group. 3. Adding India and Japan will only strengthen the Asia-Pacific group at the expense of the other regions. In other words the same mess with nine vetoes instead of five and Africa still gets shit on.
My idea for reform is a version of the NS system where each region elects its own delegates. We can do away with the permanent membership of the Council altogether and replace them with regional delegates who represent their regions, NOT their nations, who would be elected every five or ten years. Each region would have its own protocols for choosing and recalling their delegate. A nation that is leaning fascist will be less likely to get elected, unlike the current messup that has no protection against, for example, the havoc a permanent member that just elected a fascist president could wreak. Yes, the idea came from NS (hence the comparison above of the permanent members to extremely corrupt moderators who can't be canned) and a lot of people might think that alone makes it a bad idea for serious reform of international policy but at least international UN bodies could do their jobs without being hamstrung by conflicts with veto-wielders with no way to remove them.
