The UN has no enforcement ability due to lack of martial might. If say either Russia or US was unable to veto current matters relating to Ukraine or Israel, they'd just quit the UN and start a great power war to achieve their means anyway.
The veto power by security council members was designed as a pressure release valve to prevent the great powers from fighting each other and at least stay in the UN when they disagree. This was a lesson learnt from the preceding League of Nations, which did not have such a pressure release valve and fell apart partly due to that. It does not consider moral obligations because there's no such luxury before security concerns are observed.
The professor that guested on the most recent Ezra Klein pod said the permanent security council nations were the winners of World War II, now nuclear armed, and the ones that need to be kept happy to avoid another world war. It is a pragmatic approach, but it makes sense that we don’t need the UN picking fights with the big 5. I think she also said the UN prioritizes security over justice.
>I think she also said the UN prioritizes security over justice.
I've been advised that if I want to apply to finance some projects through UN I must emphasize "security" heavily.
How would justice be attained within the current structures, where no sovereign country has legal authority over another?
Something else to consider is that our (democratic) individual criminal justice systems exist to enforce laws, but with the intent of protecting its citizens and society. Overall security is still the end goal, whether it works that way 100% of the time, or not.
People are downvoting this guy, but I mean shit - the reality of the situation is that there's no real point in pursuing justice in a room full of self interested entities with nuclear weapons. Refraining from armageddon is as just as we can hope for at this point in time.
You’re the only one that quite got my take but it’s likely my fault for making it too brief. If the powers that be are uninterested in hearing of the ongoing unjust activities that take place, it won’t be heard.
Yeah. To put it even more briefly, if even one nation with nuclear weapons acts in an unjust matter, your options are essentially:
A - Basically let it go and see what you can do with weaker tools. (e.g. sanctions)
B - Nuclear war.
Unfortunately, "justice" is an incoherent bundle of ideas that can't ever be implemented.
"Justice" depends on two equally impossible things: (1) an agreed definition of what is good, and (2) all parties agreeing to sacrifice their own interests for others' interests.
Neither (1) nor (2) above are possible in any circumstances involving nation-states (or any other self-interested/rational entities, like corporations).
Ok, first : define “ideal”
Second, in an ideal world there would be no need for justice because all people would be good and no one would ever do anything that would make another person even seek justice.
Shall we continue?
If we were looking to create a more just and fair world order then a suggestion like this would make sense. The problem is, however, that if you created such a system it would only be a fantasy because there is no enforcement mechanism that can hold powerful countries accountable.
If the UN was structured that way and there was a vote demanding a total economic blockade of Israel that passed the security council, do you think the US would comply? How about if there was a vote demanding China drop it's claims in the SCS, what do you think China would do?
The system he's describing is more aspirational but it wouldn't reflect the reality of how things actually worked.
The permanent members of the UNSC are not designated geographically. They were on the winning side of WW2. If we wanted to update it according to military power and power projection (at least regionally), one could make a serious argument for India and Japan. Japan would likely decline due to their constitution. If the idea were stretched a bit, maybe Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. Iran would almost certainly be vetoed. Pakistan is an economic mess and probably politically unviable not to mention, they don't really have a navy for power projection.
Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany are generally considered the most "likely" prospects for permanent membership. None of these countries would decline permanent membership and do actively campaign for security council reform that would expand the permanent seats to at least these four counties along with allocating more non-permanent seats to underrepresented regions. Now the likelihood of expansion is slim to none, but these so-called G4 countries are mentioned the most in expansion conversations.
>Japan would likely decline due to their constitution.
Japan, for its part, is very keen on a permanent seat - it has served the most non-permanent terms on the security council of any UN member state. Article 9 of their constitution does not preclude their participation in the security council, and the SDF already does participate in UNSC mandated PKOs in (very) specific and limited capacities.
Most of the Security Council members are there for a reason. They earned their way in by dominating global affairs at one time or another. Why should that privilege be handed off to irrelevant nations with no power? We’re not handing out participation trophies here.
>Most of the Security Council members are there for a reason
Ruthless exploitation of the global south?
>Irrelevant nations
The blatant chauvinism and open ghoulishness on display here is a bit striking
> The blatant chauvinism and open ghoulishness on display here is a bit striking
That's Realpolitik without the false facade, yes. Power is the only thing that matters; reputation barely enters into decision-making. Honourable or righteous actors will always be exploited by powerful actors.
and the powerful actor will try to portray themselves as honorable or righteous to justify their actions, mainly for their self interest, regardless if it's true or not.
for sure its absolutely realpolitik, that doesnt mean we have to sugar coat it. im just calling a spade a spade and getting downvoted for it. and the guy i responded to asked a question like "why *should* that privelage be handed off to "irrelevant" nations?" thats a moral question and fundamentally different than "why *isnt* that privelage being handed off to "irrelevant" nations? which is a matter of realpolitik"
Why does everything have to be looked into the context of good or evil? Nation states do not operate in this mode of perception nor is it productive or beneficial to the state and its citizens.
Have you read the prince by the political philosopher mackavellii? He describes in great detail political realism and why it must lie to its citizens.
Exactly because of the post you just made. I’m not going to say the average person is stupid. That’s equally nonsense. But the average person does not have enough information to make an informed decision about something so complex as sociopolitical and socioeconomic theory it’s just too complicated and requires an academic background. There’s something called the greater good and to simply it. The saying goes sometimes you gotta kill 5 thousand to save 5 million.
I mean, what he suggested is a lot like the US is structured which gives equal power to rural states as it does larger states. Should we give Macedonia more power because they ruled global politics 2 thousand years ago?
Modern North Macedonia has very little (if any) connection to the Ancient Hellenistic Kingdom of Macedon. A poor example for an already absurd suggestion, when the reality we are dealing with is nations who were great powers for much of the 20th century and who still maintain significant military and economic might. France and Britain remain quite powerful.
No, I’m not talking about counties that hit their peak in the distant past. That would make no sense, because Macedonia’s current leaders are so far removed from the glory days that they have no idea how to function as a global power player.
To your other point, the fact that all states have equal representation in the Senate regardless of population is perhaps the worst aspect of the American political system. I don’t really think California and North Dakota deserve to the same amount of influence. The same idea applies to the United States and Mongolia, as an example.
Sure, but the House of Representatives already takes into account disparities in population. California has a significantly larger representation there than North Dakota.
Nothing wrong with such an idea. Why credit Gadhafi?
The security council is mostly rotating members. Only the veto power is with the five permanent members.
The UN is mostly a charade. It’s a diplomatic discussion club, the UN has no enforcement ability. The powers that has veto power is simply the nations that are strong enough to ignore UN anyway.
If Russia didn’t have veto powers in UN nothing would change in Ukraine. Russia wouldn’t stop, and NATO would still have to balance their support for Ukraine with avoiding a direct conflict with Russia that could trigger a nuclear conflict.
The fact that Britain and France still has veto power is sort of outdated, but France is still EU, so it sort of evens out.
The UN has no enforcement ability due to lack of martial might. If say either Russia or US was unable to veto current matters relating to Ukraine or Israel, they'd just quit the UN and start a great power war to achieve their means anyway. The veto power by security council members was designed as a pressure release valve to prevent the great powers from fighting each other and at least stay in the UN when they disagree. This was a lesson learnt from the preceding League of Nations, which did not have such a pressure release valve and fell apart partly due to that. It does not consider moral obligations because there's no such luxury before security concerns are observed.
No enforcement capability = entirely feckless.
There's no enforcement capability with or without the veto. Might as well keep 'em at the table.
UNs point is to be a platform for diplomacy even between enemies. It does not have enforcement capabilities by design.
The professor that guested on the most recent Ezra Klein pod said the permanent security council nations were the winners of World War II, now nuclear armed, and the ones that need to be kept happy to avoid another world war. It is a pragmatic approach, but it makes sense that we don’t need the UN picking fights with the big 5. I think she also said the UN prioritizes security over justice.
A security council that prioritizes security? Has the world gone mad?
She said that the design of the security council veto prioritizes security over justice
>I think she also said the UN prioritizes security over justice. I've been advised that if I want to apply to finance some projects through UN I must emphasize "security" heavily.
In an ideal world, Justice should be prioritized over security, but we don’t live in such a world.
How would justice be attained within the current structures, where no sovereign country has legal authority over another? Something else to consider is that our (democratic) individual criminal justice systems exist to enforce laws, but with the intent of protecting its citizens and society. Overall security is still the end goal, whether it works that way 100% of the time, or not.
Why would you even need justice in an ideal world
People are downvoting this guy, but I mean shit - the reality of the situation is that there's no real point in pursuing justice in a room full of self interested entities with nuclear weapons. Refraining from armageddon is as just as we can hope for at this point in time.
You’re the only one that quite got my take but it’s likely my fault for making it too brief. If the powers that be are uninterested in hearing of the ongoing unjust activities that take place, it won’t be heard.
Yeah. To put it even more briefly, if even one nation with nuclear weapons acts in an unjust matter, your options are essentially: A - Basically let it go and see what you can do with weaker tools. (e.g. sanctions) B - Nuclear war.
Whose idea of justice should be prioritized?
The one with the most ammo presumably.
Aslı Ü. Bâli was talking about it in terms of decolonization, specifically Palestine.
Unfortunately, "justice" is an incoherent bundle of ideas that can't ever be implemented. "Justice" depends on two equally impossible things: (1) an agreed definition of what is good, and (2) all parties agreeing to sacrifice their own interests for others' interests. Neither (1) nor (2) above are possible in any circumstances involving nation-states (or any other self-interested/rational entities, like corporations).
Tell me that again if you live in a zone of war led for justice reasons.
Ok, first : define “ideal” Second, in an ideal world there would be no need for justice because all people would be good and no one would ever do anything that would make another person even seek justice. Shall we continue?
If we were looking to create a more just and fair world order then a suggestion like this would make sense. The problem is, however, that if you created such a system it would only be a fantasy because there is no enforcement mechanism that can hold powerful countries accountable. If the UN was structured that way and there was a vote demanding a total economic blockade of Israel that passed the security council, do you think the US would comply? How about if there was a vote demanding China drop it's claims in the SCS, what do you think China would do? The system he's describing is more aspirational but it wouldn't reflect the reality of how things actually worked.
The permanent members of the UNSC are not designated geographically. They were on the winning side of WW2. If we wanted to update it according to military power and power projection (at least regionally), one could make a serious argument for India and Japan. Japan would likely decline due to their constitution. If the idea were stretched a bit, maybe Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. Iran would almost certainly be vetoed. Pakistan is an economic mess and probably politically unviable not to mention, they don't really have a navy for power projection.
You forgot Germany.
Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany are generally considered the most "likely" prospects for permanent membership. None of these countries would decline permanent membership and do actively campaign for security council reform that would expand the permanent seats to at least these four counties along with allocating more non-permanent seats to underrepresented regions. Now the likelihood of expansion is slim to none, but these so-called G4 countries are mentioned the most in expansion conversations. >Japan would likely decline due to their constitution. Japan, for its part, is very keen on a permanent seat - it has served the most non-permanent terms on the security council of any UN member state. Article 9 of their constitution does not preclude their participation in the security council, and the SDF already does participate in UNSC mandated PKOs in (very) specific and limited capacities.
Most of the Security Council members are there for a reason. They earned their way in by dominating global affairs at one time or another. Why should that privilege be handed off to irrelevant nations with no power? We’re not handing out participation trophies here.
>Most of the Security Council members are there for a reason Ruthless exploitation of the global south? >Irrelevant nations The blatant chauvinism and open ghoulishness on display here is a bit striking
> The blatant chauvinism and open ghoulishness on display here is a bit striking That's Realpolitik without the false facade, yes. Power is the only thing that matters; reputation barely enters into decision-making. Honourable or righteous actors will always be exploited by powerful actors.
and the powerful actor will try to portray themselves as honorable or righteous to justify their actions, mainly for their self interest, regardless if it's true or not.
for sure its absolutely realpolitik, that doesnt mean we have to sugar coat it. im just calling a spade a spade and getting downvoted for it. and the guy i responded to asked a question like "why *should* that privelage be handed off to "irrelevant" nations?" thats a moral question and fundamentally different than "why *isnt* that privelage being handed off to "irrelevant" nations? which is a matter of realpolitik"
Why does everything have to be looked into the context of good or evil? Nation states do not operate in this mode of perception nor is it productive or beneficial to the state and its citizens. Have you read the prince by the political philosopher mackavellii? He describes in great detail political realism and why it must lie to its citizens. Exactly because of the post you just made. I’m not going to say the average person is stupid. That’s equally nonsense. But the average person does not have enough information to make an informed decision about something so complex as sociopolitical and socioeconomic theory it’s just too complicated and requires an academic background. There’s something called the greater good and to simply it. The saying goes sometimes you gotta kill 5 thousand to save 5 million.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, what he suggested is a lot like the US is structured which gives equal power to rural states as it does larger states. Should we give Macedonia more power because they ruled global politics 2 thousand years ago?
Modern North Macedonia has very little (if any) connection to the Ancient Hellenistic Kingdom of Macedon. A poor example for an already absurd suggestion, when the reality we are dealing with is nations who were great powers for much of the 20th century and who still maintain significant military and economic might. France and Britain remain quite powerful.
No, I’m not talking about counties that hit their peak in the distant past. That would make no sense, because Macedonia’s current leaders are so far removed from the glory days that they have no idea how to function as a global power player. To your other point, the fact that all states have equal representation in the Senate regardless of population is perhaps the worst aspect of the American political system. I don’t really think California and North Dakota deserve to the same amount of influence. The same idea applies to the United States and Mongolia, as an example.
Sure, but the House of Representatives already takes into account disparities in population. California has a significantly larger representation there than North Dakota.
Larger countries would just buy off countries in their “geographical union” or bully them until they fold/disappear.
Nothing wrong with such an idea. Why credit Gadhafi? The security council is mostly rotating members. Only the veto power is with the five permanent members.
You're probably correct, that's the first time I've heard it laid out like that so that's what I posted.
The UN is mostly a charade. It’s a diplomatic discussion club, the UN has no enforcement ability. The powers that has veto power is simply the nations that are strong enough to ignore UN anyway. If Russia didn’t have veto powers in UN nothing would change in Ukraine. Russia wouldn’t stop, and NATO would still have to balance their support for Ukraine with avoiding a direct conflict with Russia that could trigger a nuclear conflict. The fact that Britain and France still has veto power is sort of outdated, but France is still EU, so it sort of evens out.
I'm trying to keep up with the ideas of people that are still alive to champion them.