What is the point of the UN?

[Pitre]

The rule of international law seems to have gone out of the window.

Trump/Putin/Netanyahu/Xi can do what they want, apparently.

None of the above will ever stand trial for war crimes

No UN peacekeeping forces are deployed anywhere significant

So what is the point of the UN now?

[Hippea]

I think people misunderstand what the UN is, it's simply a forum to bring nations together and guide diplomacy.

Its not some magical non state actor that can swoop in and fix things.

We are fundamentally seeing a huge shift from the status quo of post WW2 international relations, my belief is the next couple of decades we will see a very different world, with new institutions to fit within that.

[Wills2]

Since the UN was formed I think Russia (Soviet Union) China and the US have always done what they wanted to some extent reined in only by each other, look at the sthousery that went on during the cold war years for details.

Edited by Wills2 on Monday 5th January 10:33

[Panamax]

The world is transitioning from "countries" to "continents". Unfortunately the UK finds itself heading the wrong way up a one-way street.

[z4RRSchris]

its a forum for people to express views,

its not a forum for action, given 5 members with 4 different foreign policy views have a veto.

"peace keeping" mainly for dodgey african replublics and disaster zones.

[isaldiri]

Hippea said:

I think people misunderstand what the UN is, it's simply a forum to bring nations together and guide diplomacy.

Its not some magical non state actor that can swoop in and fix things.

We are fundamentally seeing a huge shift from the status quo of post WW2 international relations, my belief is the next couple of decades we will see a very different world, with new institutions to fit within that.

it seems more that people like to imagine that international law means a damn just because of what it's supposed to mean.....but it's really only been a thing when backed up by, at minimum, by threat of force if not actual use of force from... someone who matters.

new institutions or otherwise, that isn't going to change as ultimately whoever has sufficient power to do whatever they like determines what happens and it's a question of whether anyone can or will be minded stop them. The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

[Eric Mc]

Pitre said:

The rule of international law seems to have gone out of the window.

Trump/Putin/Netanyahu/Xi can do what they want, apparently.

None of the above will ever stand trial for war crimes

No UN peacekeeping forces are deployed anywhere significant

So what is the point of the UN now?

You obviously have no idea of all the things that are done under the auspices of the UN.

[mac96]

Eric Mc said:

Pitre said:

The rule of international law seems to have gone out of the window.

Trump/Putin/Netanyahu/Xi can do what they want, apparently.

None of the above will ever stand trial for war crimes

No UN peacekeeping forces are deployed anywhere significant

So what is the point of the UN now?

You obviously have no idea of all the things that are done under the auspices of the UN.

Perhaps not, but the UN started with such lofty ideals that disappointment was probably inevitable, and now that the USA has stopped even paying lip service to those ideals, disappointment has arrived.

Look at the UN's aims- not doing very well on a global scale is it. Might is still right, regardless. We have probably been saved from WW3, so far, by nuclear weapons and MAD, not the UN.

Article 1
The^Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead
to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples, and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions
of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

[Pitre]

Eric Mc said:

Pitre said:

The rule of international law seems to have gone out of the window.

Trump/Putin/Netanyahu/Xi can do what they want, apparently.

None of the above will ever stand trial for war crimes

No UN peacekeeping forces are deployed anywhere significant

So what is the point of the UN now?

You obviously have no idea of all the things that are done under the auspices of the UN.

That's a very fair point, but the reason I asked the question

[Eric Mc]

Pitre said:

Eric Mc said:

Pitre said:

The rule of international law seems to have gone out of the window.

Trump/Putin/Netanyahu/Xi can do what they want, apparently.

None of the above will ever stand trial for war crimes

No UN peacekeeping forces are deployed anywhere significant

So what is the point of the UN now?

You obviously have no idea of all the things that are done under the auspices of the UN.

That's a very fair point, but the reason I asked the question

It's a vast organisation that runs hundreds of programmes throughout the world. Most of these programmes are very good and help millions of people. Obviously, some areas of their involvements are not so great. But it's better that the organisation exists rather than not existing.

[Pitre]

OK, so what organisation is responsible for administering 'international law', assuming such a thing formally exists?

[z4RRSchris]

Pitre said:

OK, so what organisation is responsible for administering 'international law', assuming such a thing formally exists?

there isnt one,

its whoever has the biggest stick, buys the most from the US / China, and the most sanction power.

you can read the UN resolutions below, almost all have an action they rule a member state must make. 99.9% of the time they are ignored. The security council can then rule on that but someone will veto it.

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/res...

i think the only person to care about "international law" is Kier and the Chagos islands debate.

Edited by z4RRSchris on Monday 5th January 13:39

[MC Bodge]

Pitre said:

OK, so what organisation is responsible for administering 'international law', assuming such a thing formally exists?

The strongest, or with the agreement of the strongest, determine the "law", the interpretation of it or decide to ignore it.

[MC Bodge]

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

[DeadShed]

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

[MC Bodge]

DeadShed said:

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

Which part were you thinking? Calais?

[Gargamel]

DeadShed said:

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

Capital idea.

Paris by lunchtime and home again in time for croissants and medals.

[Peterpetrole]

DeadShed said:

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

I'd be all for that.

The more detailed plan would be to donate the North Eastern bit of France to Belgium and occupy all the nice bits.

[MC Bodge]

DeadShed said:

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

Hmm, if the UK was to follow other nations' methods, then surely the English speakers of Benidorm would be liberated?

[Earthdweller]

MC Bodge said:

DeadShed said:

MC Bodge said:

The UK/Western Europe have become accustomed to relative peace, and the backing of The US, since the late 1940s. This was not the historical norm.

Are you saying we should invade France?

Which part were you thinking? Calais?

Large parts of France were controlled by the English ... Calais until 1558

So there's a precedent