How does united nations resolve conflict?

Question

a few ideas since google seems to be useless. :/

Answer 1

Back office wheeling and dealing, bribery and other such tactics. I'm not kidding either...heard of the Oil for Food program?

Answer 2

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations has jurisdiction of disputes involving international bodies.

Answer 3

They write a letter.  And if that doesn't work, they write another, more strongly worded, letter.

Answer 4

The UN is a terrible organization. resolving conflicts isn't on they're agenda.

http://www.getusout.org/

Answer 5

The UN, as mentioned in the first answer, has not resolved a conflict since its manifestation in the 1940's.  The reason for this is that it has no power in which to control/hold countries to account.  Its a bit like your back garden/yard.  No one else can come in to it, unless you say so, and if they do (and if you live in america) you can shoot them.

The UN is like this.  They cannot go into anyones back garden AT ALL, because they don't have the power or authority to do so.  The UN is only 3 things.  It is an idea with a name; The United Nations.  It has a   Headquarters; In New York.  And it has a flag.  These are the only three thing the UN has.

This is why it has not resolved any conflicts in the past 57 years. Because is hasn't got the ability to, it is quite literally, my friend, like the tooth fairy and Peter Pan, a MYTH!!!

Answer 6

the UN doesn't really do anything it is just another place to employ people and pay them a lot of money.

Answer 7

Well,  I havent seen the UN do much to resolve any conflicts.

Generally an issue may come up either in general assembly or if pressing the security council may meet on it and have discussions on action.  If an action is decided upon generally its just a letter.

Once in awhile they will impose sanctions on the decided offender but they generally dont amount to much other than a wagging of the finger.

Answer 8

It Doesn't !!

Just "jobs for the boys" I'm afraid

Answer 9

The United Nations has not resolved a conflict in about 50 years.  It's pretty much a useless organization.  If there is a conflict, such as Darfur, the UN has a bunch of meetings and passes a bunch of resolutions and the conflict just keeps on keeping on.  The UN has been passing resolutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict for 60 years and none of it has amounted to squat.

The last time the UN mounted any sort of coordinated effort at all was in Korea in 1953, and even then that war just wore itself down and never actually ended; technically the Korean War is still going on.

The UN learned from Korea not to get actively involved in a conflict again, so now all it does is to send observers who eventually get their butts shot off by one side or the other.

Answer 10

It doesn't.

Answer 11

largely it appears this is not the place for informed and intelligent answers.  The UN is a meeting place.  Our governments make decisions and create consensus for action.  The reality is it's also a punching block - everyone during Rwanda; currently during Darfur; Pol Pot regime in Cambodia dug in to excuse their own inaction.  When agreement to act exists between the major powers - they put personnel between the combatants and seeks to provide an alternative and perhaps a route to a resolution (i.e. election).  This is a very short verions - check the website.

Answer 12

I think the organisation is meant to "facilitate" conflict resolution, and promote peace.  It would do this by having an independent status and reputation. (a fair facilitator of peace has to have no interest in one side or the others argument)

To this end, its funding of 20% US, 20% Japan, 9% Germany, 6% UK, 6% France, 5% Italy, does give it some bias towards the opinion of those paying the salaries of those employed by the UN.  

Clearly any international body being drip fed funding, and expected to act as an impartial peace promoting organisation will always be viewed sceptically by any nation not heavily funding this organisation and not a member of the G77.

It effectively acts as a Global political party, which puts political pressure on the opposition to the G77 (which historically might be called the Axis groups rather than the Allies post WW11)

Another organisation, which calls itself a charity, does similar but more beneficial things.  The Red Cross, International Red Cross, the British Red Cross, or any other charity with this name funded by donations from a particular region and quite often acting independently from each other.  

It is also a political party, but pays doctors and nurses to go and do a job under the name of "charity".  The benefit of this is that the company gets to be tax efficient, and also raises its funds via generous benefactors who to some extent can have a significant influence on who is employed by these charities.  A form of tax efficient money laundering if you like.