how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003
First answer this: which organization has been more effective: the UN or the League of Nations before it?Shouldn't permanent membership and those members' vetos be abolished? — Tim3003
how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003
Who wants radical change? To benefit whom? It serves as a means of bridging gaps and has helped some situations. It is not a government nor an independent body with its own needs and wants. — I like sushi
Yes. I think the Security Council ought to be dismantled, it's essentially a way for powerful nations to ignore whatever international laws they do not like, especially during war time.
There's no need to pretend this council does good at all.
The General Assembly should be given more legal authority, as it is more democratic and hence more representative of world opinion. — Manuel
Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread. — Tzeentch
Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. — Tim3003
I thought the UN was a tool for peace. — Tim3003
Your vision will surely promote regional conflict ... — Tim3003
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.