United Nations Security Council; Abolished or Maintained
The United Nations was originally created in order to maintain peace and security. It is an assembly of a variety of nations that all work together to maintain order. The UN has a variety of councils that specialize in different areas to ensure efficient work and action. One of those councils is the security council. This council is designed to look at global threats and help neutralize them. There is a large debate on why or why not this council should continue to operate. First they operate under international law. This widley differs from the idea of law that most people have and the difference is an important distinction. First, while it is written like traditional law there is no country or entity to back it up. This is crucial because there is no prosecution, so no jail time or fines. So knowing that the security council operates under international law, what is their purpose and how do they back up their actions? The security council is made up of five permanent countries and ten elected countries that are subject to change. Not much about the council has changed since founding in 1946. There purpose being to resolve threats, maintain international security, and handle terrorism. But how can a council that has no ability to punish or prosecute these threats operate effectively? They can’t. The council is outdated and needs a lot of reform in order to be able to do what they are created to do. While this might be the case, that would cost a lot of money and time. And isn’t having some sort of body that at very least discusses these issues better than not having anything at all. While in recent decades they haven’t accomplished very much at least knowing that there is some sort of body trying to make issues better versus letting them go unnoticed? While the council doesn’t provide much, completely redesigning it would be too costly. In addition to the fact that international law remains the same and its power is very limited, they are working with what they have. Unless the powers that are granted in international law change there can never be a security council that would be able to act at their full potential. But this then begs the question, if giving a international body like the UN the same powers as domestic law, who gets to use it and what stops unfair use of these powers? In the case of the security council where five countries get to remain permanent, why couldn't they use the security council as a means to act out their own agenda? It creates a lot of problems and the potential for power to be used unfairly. For that reason the United Nation security council should remain as is.
Madison Kjeldgaard
While I agree that the UN Security Council may be in need of some reform, I am curious about the reasons that you give in reference to international law, as the council typically acts on the international stage by imposing sanctions, or deciding to deploy UN peacekeeping forces rather than pursuing prosecution.
ReplyDeleteI think the United Nations Security Council is very similar to the ICC. Both have the potential to be beneficial to national peace, but they fail with the execution. National peace is always important for the betterment of society and I do believe that some measures should be put in place for this, but the execution thus far has been incredibly underwhelming. What do you think could be done to improve the United Nations Security Council?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the security council has problems and is far from being perfect. However, since World War II, there has been no major war between the great powers. In my perspective, it proves that the Security Council fulfills his primary purpose. Nevertheless, one should always try to make something better. The problem is that it is very challenging to find a consensus between the countries to make reforms.
ReplyDelete