Reengineering the UN (was Re: [extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense)
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Aug 28 09:32:18 UTC 2004
"J. Andrew Rogers" wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > If your going to have 5 permanent security council members
> > I think you have to have the US, China and Russia's power and
> > populations give them a place, and the last two could be any
> > number of countries but the UK and France are as good as any
> > other so far as I can see.
> I think one could make a reasonable argument that one of the
> permanent European countries should be replaced by Japan, which
> has a military, economy, and population that is at least as large or
> larger than any of them. But there is the problem of appearances.
That wouldn't be unreasonable, in theory, I accept that Japan or
Germany might be as good or better than France, but there is no way
within the UN Charter to remove an encumbent permanent security
Article 6 allows for expelling members from the UN upon the
recommendation of the SC but the only recommendations the SC
makes are in the form of resolutions and a permanent SC member
would certainly veto any resolution aimed at its own removal.
To remake the UN with different permanent security council members
or with a differently tiered structure as you suggest you'd really have to
break it properly (ie. completely) and come up with a UN V.3 like the
UN is sort of a version 2 after the League of Nations.
The problem with all this is it takes an enormous amount of political
will to do something like that. It would normally be beyond what a
democratically elected politician (even a US President on a 4 year
term) could politically dare to take on (even if he/she wanted too).
It took a world war to provide a failure conspicuous enough to end
the League of Nations.
More information about the extropy-chat