-1

The UN Security Council can not act against Russia as they use their veto on any resolution against their invasion. It seems obvious that we need a reformation of the council so no country can block such a resolution one-sided. However, that is not possible as Russia would need to approve that reform, too, which it won't do.

So if we can't reform it, can't we create a new organization similar to the UN? In my imagination, all states could leave the UN, establish "UN 2.0" (leaving Russia as the last and only member of the old UN), and come up with a resolution in that new organization that would legitimate international intervention, alongside a security council without veto permissions.

I know it can't be that easy, but I'm wondering what the blocker would be for this. Is there a reason why this idea is not pursued or discussed?

Improve this question
12
  • 20
    The veto is a feature, not a bug. The theory is that the only way to get the world's major powers in the same room at the same time is to ensure that none of them can override the wishes of the others. It means that the UN is often powerless to act; but the idea is that a weak UN that everyone attends nonetheless reduces the chances of war between the major powers. Also, the UN is the second attempt; see the League of Nations for the first one.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Oct 2, 2022 at 13:04
  • 9
    It´s not like Russia is the only country using the veto right, USA also using it.
    – convert
    Oct 2, 2022 at 13:07
  • 5
    You forgot China. Let's skip straight to UN 3.0.
    – Therac - Peace for Palestine
    Oct 2, 2022 at 14:08
  • 1
    "I know it can't be that easy.." How do you know that? I think it surely is that easy, you just have to want to do it and you could do it.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Oct 2, 2022 at 14:13
  • 6
    The established nuclear powers, and in particular the USA would never ever join an organisation in which they didn't have a veto. Perhaps after WWIII, and after the USA has ceased to exist ... until then this is a non-starter.
    – James K
    Oct 2, 2022 at 19:28

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Just so we can close this question as answered: because the new organization would not be a replacement for the UN - it's extremely unlikely the major powers would join if not for a veto.

And the "major powers" are not the 4 existing permanent members besides Russia. Within the current UN, there's been an on-going discussion that India and/or Brazil should have a permanent position as well. That discussion has been stalled for pretty much the same reason; you can't just rewrite the rules of the existing UN. For for a UN 3.0? India would want the same status as China, and Pakistan has its own ideas about India in turn, and ...

It just becomes too much of a mess setting up such an alternative. Probably the only thing you could get away with is some kind of "United Democracies", which would not replace the UN, and which would exclude China and Russia for obvious reasons.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .