What can we do?

Reformation of UN
Keith R

The UN is already the agency where all international treaties are supposed to be reported. And the World Court at the Hague is a UN agency. The World Health Organization is also in service. Prior to the UN, maritime law was already becoming internationalized. I do not know if maritime law is under the UN umbrella or not.

It may even be best that the UN evolve slowly. That way trust is built slowly. The UN is not really trusted by many nations or their citizens. There are a number of reasons for this. Here are some.

1 Nations, large or small, often ignore UN directives/resolutions (see 2 & 3) for various reasons. There must be some method whereby a nation can appeal a UN action in a forum that uses the Rule of Law rather than a political one. The World Court would do nicely I think with maybe some kind of Jury system. And the Resolution would not necessarily become void, but might be held not to apply to that nation if it was found to be politically motivated or it would put undue hardship on that nation. Maybe randomly draw a "jury" for some cases from the General Assembly.

2 UN directives are often deliberately crafted so that some group gains an advantage at the expense of others. There should be a method in place to reduce the likelihood of this happening or reduce its effects. Perhaps binding Resolutions need more than one vote or need renewing at regular intervals. Allowing appeals to a court might help.

3 Some UN Resolutions are so politicized and polarizing that while every one more or less agrees on the main subject there is no agreement on the method and/or means and/or timing of the remedial action. This has prevented effective action time and again even when the case is crystal clear. Perhaps allowing the World Court to allow remedial action (within UN and International Law) by member states without UN approval.

4 The UN often ignores obvious problems where the power exists to easily prevent or ameliorate. The Rwandan genocide was one such. Ditto the Sudanese and Ethiopian/Eritrean famines. (Note: Most famines in the 20th century were deliberately caused.) Perhaps allowing the World Court to allow remedial action (within UN and International Law) by member states without UN approval.

5 UN has no accountability. If the UN fails to do something or does something wrong it is not held accountable to its member states or their citizens. Perhaps a bicameral General Assembly. One house where the delegates are appointed by the national government and vote the way their national government says and the other house where the delegates are elected directly by the citizens of the nation and vote as they please - a secret vote. The Security Council would stay with that veto power intact, but the General assemblies could over ride any veto with a 60% "yeah" vote.

6 The UN would still draw its military power from its member states but would have total access and oversight to each nations nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs (WMD only). Giving the UN these programs means it would have to pay for them, there are fewer minds working on the various problems and there would be no counter balance to this civilization killing power. Giving the UN access would probably serve almost as well and bypass that problem of national sovereignty. Sovereignty is kept but is counter balanced by international guardians.

7 The UN would be required to expel any nation, who upon a 2/3 vote of both assemblies and a security council vote has been declared an aggressor power. That nation would then have to apply for readmission and meet the requirements of the UN charter and international law.

8 The UN ignores individuals almost totally (except for humanitarian programs). This is one reason why people distrust it. Having a bicameral General Assembly mentioned in 5 would help this, but giving the individual or groups of individuals the right to sue in UN court for things within UN jurisdiction might be something also. The UN would then be held at least somewhat more accountable to the citizens. This right would have to be limited though or there would be gridlock in the court.

9 Its humanitarian assistance responsibility would not be changed. Protection for its workers should be enhanced. Its workers would be nonpolitical.

10 Any organization could be declared a terrorist organization by a mere majority vote of the General Assembly(s) OR a unanimous vote of the Security Council OR by a World Court case. Allowing member states to take unilateral action where ever these groups exist would be necessary to some degree.

11 Any nation that deliberately assists another nation in avoiding the requirements of UN Resolutions would not be able to use their Security Council vote if any Resolutions regarding that nation comes up. An automatic abstention. Similar to a Judge recusing himself from a case where he has a personal interest or connection.

12 UN Resolutions that call for economic sanctions or things that require the services of a bank would be handled by the World Bank rather than a national bank. French banks handled the "Oil for Food program and probably helped Iraq to launder some of the money for the acquisition of proscribed materials.