[mmastrac]

One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in the world, and that structure ensures that it continues to exist.

The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

I don't know how you could make a world-level government with enforcement work given the current imbalance of powers between the top and bottom parts of the power scale.

EDIT: Why the downvotes? Is this not how the world works? I'd be interested in seeing why the disagreement.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

[tsimionescu]

I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and absurdly claiming that a UN security council resolution is non-binding. So even like, it's unclear how much the system actually works.

However, I don't agree that this means the ICJ or ICC should just not give decisions that they can't enforce. Ultimately these courts stand as unbiased observers on the world stage, and their opinions can be used by the countries making up the UN to guide their own actions. Ideally, the world's media should also pay close attention and guide its own reporting as well based on the decisions (and rationale for those decisions).

Much like the UN's climate panel, there is real value in having a panel of domain experts present an informed, unbiased, opinion on world matters, even if they can't directly enforce anything.

[ronjobber]

The reason ICJ and ICC should be careful about giving decisions they cannot enforce is because over time it can undermine their credibility. Eventually you end up with these international bodies writing the equivalence of "open letters", which is fine I guess... but if those actions have no effect on outcomes it really starts to undermine the Institutionalist side of IR theory.

Personally, I find that unfortunate. While I think the realists are mostly right, it is helpful to have international legal institutions that maintain some degree of legitimacy and power for the purpose of norm-setting.

[tsimionescu]

The problem is that they will also lose all legitimacy if they only give decisions against the enemies of the USA. They then end up looking as a propaganda arm of the USA, which is, in my opinion, even worse than being an ineffectual but respected international organization.

[immibis]

Speaking of climate, today Germany is claiming that climate protestors must be punished like the mafia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/...

[tsimionescu]

Ah yes, the German Greens, truly the party of environmentalism... I would be almost shocked if I hadn't long become accustomed to my own country's extreme disconnect between the claimed doctrine of each party and their actual politics.

[dragonwriter]

> One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2].

Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the court for disputes between nations in the UN system, and the ICC, a newer court to which parties to the Rome Statute have delegated some part of their (universal, under international law) jurisidiction over individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and, most recently, aggression.

But that's also not the reason for the veto; in fact, the veto contributes to this problem with the ICJ.

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

That's obviously an alternative, other alternatives exist, including one with a weaker but extent international body for nations to come to the table (proven, the League of Nations existed), and ones with a stronger body, with its own organic capabilities (and potentially greater independent legitimacy, e.g., by direct election of some key officers rather than appointment by member states.)

The UN isn't the only possible international federation.

[mmastrac]

The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

The UN is probably the most successful international union because of its pragmatic approach, but it seems like most international political alliances fall apart within 100 years.

Other non-political international bodies seem to have more luck: the ITU -- the International Telecommunication Union -- has been around for 150 years. The International Labour Organization outlasted the League of Nations and became part of the UN.

[bluish29]

> The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

UN did not prevent WWIII. It is the mere fact that nuclear weapons and MAD made the global superpowers realize that there is no winning in such war. And that a security competition and proxy wars are acceptable. But direct confrontation to be be avoided at all costs. It is not like US, Russia (probably china and others too) do respect the UN that much anyway.

If nuclear weapons existed before WWII, There is a slim chance that it would happen.

UN did not protect iraq and Ukraine from illegal invasions such that League of nations did not protect Ethiopia in the past. The mere fact that in all cases no body wanted to confront a major power invading another country far away.

[bluish29]

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.

[mmastrac]

It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness.

The veto power was established at the founding of the UN in 1945 as a reflection of the state of the world following World War II. The major powers were given veto power to get their buy-in and participation. Without this mechanism, these powers might not have joined or supported the UN, undermining its formation and initial effectiveness.

If the veto power were removed, the major powers might feel that their core interests and national security concerns could be overridden by the majority [2], leading to their withdrawal from the UN, and significantly weakening the organization's influence and capacity to act.

There's no real authority in any of these bodies, only the appearance and illusion of legitimacy which requires buy-in from its strongest members.

[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league

[2] From above:

> Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement.

[bluish29]

You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside?

And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine. UN is currently a place so inneffective outside the general stuff that the veto countries can agree.

Again you are describing the current status que not how a real equal international community should work. Because currently when you hear that international community is behind <foo> it is usually US and some of their allies who are actual minority of humans [1]

[runarberg]

> And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine.

This is wishful thinking and a history revisionism. Mathematically speaking MAD will always result in a nuclear Armageddon. People knew that and worked with the UN to prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and escalation of the Nuclear Arms buildup. Without the UN it is hard to see something like the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty or the Non-Proliferation Treaty striking balance to the Nuclear Arms race and preventing a nuclear Armageddon.

[candiodari]

It was the US starting and pushing the comprehensive test ban treaty, not the UN. The UN didn't even try until the US successfully pushed it for decades. And STILL, all relevant negotiations are conducted by the US, the relevant backing organization is thoroughly US. It's physically in the US. It's staffed by US people. It's really more or less a branch of the US military, and it's equipment is almost exclusively on US military bases.

Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research.

Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me)

What did the UN do?

The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore.

The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result.

The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN.

The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved.

The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead).

The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid.

The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case.

Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US.

Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars.

Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.

[mmastrac]

I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works.

The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.

[immibis]

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes?

The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.

[bluish29]

Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world.

I'm pretty sure that when US is vetoing Russia, it does not mean "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't". Because Russian response will be of the sort "Great, try this and enjoy the fireworks over your population centers, we will hate to see the UN gone with the whole of New York".

[immibis]

Russia also has a veto. Either one can threaten the nukes to block a proposal.

A neutral order where nobody has nukes would be better than one where everyone has nukes. You probably can't get from here to there without the complete destruction of the US state apparatus along the way, though. The Russian one too. And every other major player.

[mbonnet]

because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.

[dragonwriter]

India has nuclear weapons and more economic power than the UK.

And yet the UK has a veto, and India does not.

Also, only one of the P5 powers had nuclear weapons when the UN Charter was signed.

[linearrust]

The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't.

There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.

[ImJamal]

We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China.

There is no reason we can't replace another government.

[Thiez]

Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.