Is the UN Security Council an outdated concept? Should it be revised?

[BushOut06]

Seems to me that the UN Security Council is a flawed organization, designed to serve the needs of the five permanent members - primarily the three "superpowers" (US, Russia, China). With each member having veto power, each nation can do practically what it wants, without fear of serious UN reprisal. Is it any surprise that the US, Russia, and China are currently among the worst human rights violators in the "modern industrialized" world? The United States has been particularly effective at using its status to its full advantage, thrusting its agenda upon the rest of the world over the last few decades.

So I ask the question, is the Security Council an outdated concept? Would it be better if the entire General Assembly were involved in making decisions, without fear of veto power from any nation?

[Selatius]

1. There would have to be a "bill of rights" if the GA decided security issues.

Otherwise, the majority in the General Assembly could simply violate minority rights if the minority didn't agree to something, like if a minority of countries decided not to join the WTO and the majority used it as an excuse to levy economic embargoes.

[MoseyWalker]

2. It's a global political "council"

These things happen; no matter the time. It will never be outdated. Possibly, it may be denigrated and redesigned with a new name at some point, but it will go on.

[The Magistrate]

3. It Is Organized As It Is, Sir

Because that is the only pattern of organization the major powers will tolerate. It is only their co-operation that gives the U.N. any degree of practical power. It would be child's play to gain a majprity vote in the General Assembly that did not represent more than a tiny fraction of the world's population, money, or military power, and no one would see any need to pay the least attention to it.

The United Nations was formed as it was originally to try and eliminate some of the structural difficulties of the old League of Nations. This had required unamimity for action aong all members, totaling some thirty or forty, of recollection serves, and that was wholly un-workable. The Security Council originally comprised the five leading powers of the war-time alliance against the Axis, and these had at least at tikes during the war managed to achieve unanimity in strategic decisions when they had a genuine shared interest.

[jwirr]

4. It would probably help to kick the US out of it.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Until we get a new President....let's hold off on thinking we should do anything....

The U.S. is more broken then the UN is...which is why Bush couldn't get the UN to go along with the Iraq Invasion.