What are the disadvantages of the united nations??

Question

What are the disadvantages of the united nations??

Answer 1

It is a "paper" front.  It accomplishes nothing and hinders success.

Answer 2

1. Too much talk, not enough action

2. Too much bureaucracy

3. Too little hold on the P5 members in the UNSC

4. Too much in-fighting

5. Too wasteful of resources

6. Too many bodies, some duplicating

7. Too slow to act

8. Too procedural

9. Almost non-existent in some cases of outright atrocities and abuse

10.Not united in purpose

Answer 3

What are the advantages?

Answer 4

They have no real power to enforce the rules or sanctions they impose.  

If military action is required for anything only the UN Security Council vote on the resolution.

Since the UN contains almost every nation in the world there is always some sort of oppostion to anything that is brought up.

Take away the USA, Russia, China, Great Britian, and France there really isn't any power the UN to do anything.  Those 5 nations hold the most power and are among the top 10 most powerful nations in the world.

Answer 5

The UN tends to favor small, undeveloped countries, and tends to hate large countries like the USA, which means that we seldom get what we want when we ask them.  They also seem incompetant and unable to effectively end problems, such as the Oil for Food fiasco where the UN gave money to Saddam Hussein in return for oil, under the stipulation that Hussein use the money to feed his people, which he instead used on weopons and himself.  It's like congress or any large governing body, a larger group tends to lord over the minority and not always come up with good solutions.

Answer 6

They have stopped over 17 conflicts for a price lower than 1/10 of the Iraq neverending war. FACT.

A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 2005-2006 fiscal year is approximately $5 billion (compared to approximately $1.5 billion for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world. The Human Security Report 2005,[22] produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia with support from several governments and foundations, documented a dramatic, but largely unrecognized, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War. Statistics include:

    * a 40% drop in violent conflict;

    * an 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts; and

    * an 80% drop in genocide and politicide.

The report, published by Oxford University Press, argued that international activism—mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main cause of the post–Cold War decline in armed conflict, though the report indicated the evidence for this contention is mostly circumstantial.

The report singles out several specific investments that have paid off:[23]

    * A sixfold increase in the number of UN missions mounted to prevent wars, from 1990 to 2002.

    * A fourfold increase in efforts to stop existing conflicts, from 1990 to 2002.

    * A sevenfold increase in the number of ‘Friends of the Secretary-General’, ‘Contact Groups’ and other government-initiated mechanisms to support peacemaking and peace-building missions, from 1990 to 2003.

    * An elevenfold increase in the number of economic sanctions against regimes around the world, from 1989 to 2001.

    * A fourfold increase in the number of UN peacekeeping operations, from 1987 to 1999.

These efforts were both more numerous and, on average, substantially larger and more complex than those of the Cold War era.

In the area of Peacekeeping, successes include:

    * The US Government Accountability Office concluded that UN Peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force.[24]

    * A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that of eight UN cases, seven are at peace, whereas of eight U.S. cases, four are at peace, and four are not or not-yet-at peace.[25]

Answer 7

We do not have the time nor the space to list all of them.The Un is something you flush down the toilet.Check it out.

Answer 8

It excludes Israel.

Answer 9

Interesting JGY...Care to show me more of that paper?

Answer 10

The UN is unique, while most other intergovernmental organizations are regional in scope, membership in the UN is universal, with nearly all of the nations of the world are represented. Out of this arrangement emerges an unprecedented legitimacy (of which the UN is the beneficiary) and an opportunistic forum in which even the smallest of nations can be heard, but if any member nation chooses to ignore the voice of another (or of the international community as a whole) the prestige and effectiveness of the system becomes threatened.

The UN is based on the CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY, which originally gained prominence with the insistence of President Wilson. At the end of WWI, recognizing the "failures" of the classic balance of power system, Wilson argued that a collective force would be the most efficient means in which to destroy and limit the future destructiveness of any nation who sought ultimate power and conquest. Under the balance of power system, the premise was held that no nation should become so strong as to be able to overpower all the others. Within this arrangement, rough equality was maintained by two camps of states in the system (for example, France in one, Germany in the other and Britain often playing the balancing role, changing 'alliances' in order to maintain the balance of power). To a large extent, this arrangement was a reaction to the fear of empire that had so often plagued Europe.

The United Nations came into existence in October of 1945. Its main objective was to maintain international peace and security in the hopes of avoiding another world war. The UN has at its disposal an array of mechanisms in which it can work to achieve its goals, and for the purposes of this discussion, Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter are the most important.

At the HEART of the collective security arrangement is Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is largely based on coercion. According to Article 39 of Chapter 7, the Security Council must first determine if there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." If such a determination is made, the Security Council then has the ability to determine whether or not to enforce sanctions, nonmilitary (Article 41) first, and military (Article 42) only after it has been decided that measures provided for under Article 41 were insufficient.

The future of the collective security arrangement is problematic because it requires all participating parties to be WILLING to abstain from aggression and FULLY ENDORSE the system.

As one scholar noted, "collective security, requires a motive force supplied by states convinced of the wisdom of, and willing to pay the price of participation in, the universal enforcement of the anti-aggression rule." In recent times, collective security has become increasingly difficult to market, not only to disgruntled nations but to the US also.

The United Nations provides the best means in which international peace and security can be maintained, and all nations, including the US, must be willing to sacrifice selfish needs in the pursuit of this aim. If not, what is to become of the United Nations and the collective security arrangement upon which it is framed?

Examples:

1.The UN was powerless to stop the coalition from attacking Iraq.

2. They can't stop China and Russia from selling arms to Sudan.

They are a little bit better than the League of Nations but it still is not enough. We need an international organization that is on the vertical rather than the horizontal.

Answer 11

there arent any

Answer 12

Well the only disadvantage is that the UN looks out for the best interest of all the countries.... sometimes a country might need to do something for its own betterment or survival that the rest of the world may not agree on......but so far I don't think this scenario has happened.