The United Nations 3.0

Image in the public domain

The First World War was in the unprecedented death and destruction of the First World War, the Alliances of the Peace Conference in 1919 ‘Nations Series’ - UN version 1.0 - a global organization for peace that many people were educated. around the world today never heard about; hardly 100 years later. The Nations Association was headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and began to operate on 15 November 1920 when 41 Member States collected its first assembly session. At its peak, the Treaty had up to 60 members; A large majority of the world's states at the time. 'Covenant' of the Nations Association was opened to be signed by “any state, dominion or colony that is completely self -regulatory… provided that it provides effective guarantees that it is committed to fulfilling its international obligations”.

Just like the United Nations (UN), which raised as Phoenix from ashes and unprecedented destruction of World War II, included advice, assembly and secretariat. Unlike today, however, there was a vote in the Council and the Assembly to be unanimous in the 1.0: each member had to be veto. Therefore, our move to the 2.0 to remove this ‘Cross Power’ from the UN Assembly: officially, the cross is still in the UN Security Council today. Unlike the UN, their membership is not only open to “State who loves peace”, the Treaty was as just mentioned, open to “any state, dominion or full autonomous colony”: for that reason it was a contract It is the nations. ' - Not a series of' state '.

The Council of the Treaty, as always, won the latest World War. In the case of 1.0, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States were to be involved. Unlike Un 2.0, the US never took its seat in the Council 1.0. According to his own official 'Historian Office', US abstain from entering the new organization because of “Article 10 of the Treaty, which dealt with equal security… surrendered this article, argued the combatants, powers. US war. Government to the Council of the Treaty ”: Instead the US government was trying to keep its“ powers of war ”.

However, the Treaty of Nations has been very successful before it collapsed, including: 1921 Conventions on Freedom of Transit and International Waterways; 1922 ‘Passport Nansen’ for refugees; 1924 Declaration for the Rights of the Child; 1925 Geneva Protocol to prohibit the use of chemical weapons and bacteriology in war; In addition to the 1926 slaves Convention. It was not really due to lack of success, but instead because his members were not willing to protect the Covenant of the Treaty. In Winston Churchill's words:

The contract has not failed because of its principles or concepts. He failed because these states had abandoned these principles that introduced it, because the governments of those people were afraid to address the facts and act while the time was left.

The beginning of the nation branch of 18 September 1931 was the invasion and occupation of the Chinese Manchuria region, by the Japanese. Despite the immediate demands of economic sanctions against Japan from the members of the Treaty, it was widely understood that the US and the USSSR would not support such sanctions: they would not have any useful purpose at all. While the Assembly finally claimed that Manchuria would be brought back to China's sovereignty in February 1933, Japan refused to do these claims - there was no implementation action accordingly - and Japan withdrawn from the Treaty the following month. Soon afterwards, Germany also withdrew from the series.

An attempted to compare the invasion of Japan from 1931 on China - a permanent member of the Treaty Council - and the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 by Russia - a permanent member of the UN Security Council (CNA) - the Something that stands out in each of the 11th 'Special Emergency Session' UN General Assembly Secrets (UNGA) in relation to this invasion, can not, again, get any authorization or call for sanctions against the permanent member to get invaded in. any place. Of course, sanctions have been implemented since then Russia - completely - outside the framework of 2.0, but this has done more to weaken the UN Award than to strengthen it: exactly which was seen towards the end of the 1.0 .

The second fatal blow was delivered to the Treaty on Ethiopia on 3 October 1935 by Mussolini in Italy. Once again members of the Treaty called for economic sanctions, and indeed these were significantly implemented. However, for reasons lost in the depth of state diplomatic, the British and French governments soon changed the course to arrange a progress, not only was the end of sanctions against Italy, but Italian full takeover on Ethiopia was also attached: it was attached in May 1936.

In the risk of pronouncing flip, Annex 1936 should also be attempted by comparing European power to Israel relentlessly on Palestinian lands (referred to by the US as “non -help”), and review the corresponding Commission resolutions. The 10th special emergency session of UNGA - dedicated to Israel only since April 1997 - is to authorize and claim the full failure of the Assembly sanctions against the treacherous state: yet no sanctions for could finally be imposed not first authorized by the state. A global body, which has suspicious legality, acts as a brake against their imposition by states who love peace.

In addition to the subject of the sanctions, be very cautious to those who continue to parlor the 'point of speech' that UNGA does not have the power to authorize sanctions under the UN Chart 2.0, despite the fact that it did so often: the law . precedent now settled in concrete. The first such authorization was given in the UN Assembly resolution - which is criticized “the Government of the Republic of South Africa for its continued rejection of… implementing the principles of the United Nations Charter” - it is encouraged “all States that have not yet been done… \ t , separately or in combination ”, to“ provide an immediate abstain from providing any military weapon or equipment in any method or form for South Africa ”, and for“ also refrain from providing any military weapon or equipment in any manner or form . Petroleum or petroleum products to South Africa ”. Therefore, the UNGA authorized military and economic sanctions against the Apartheid of South Africa as far back as 1963, ultimately from which it comes.

Of course, Germany dealt with the final blow to the Treaty, starting with her invasion of Austria on 12 March 1938. This invasion was greatly emerged as a 'link': a German word meaning “connecting ”Austria with Germany. This is a link - something that went shortly afterwards marching the German boots into Czechoslovakia, and then into Poland - the league did not tackle it the same. Indeed, by the time the German army invaded Poland, there was no obstacle to raising that question with the Treaty: Covenant 1.0 was already a dead letter. Although I do not know how to say "Connection" -in Mandarin, there is no need to predict great imagination what the 'connection -Moment' may be meant for the 2.0.

In each meeting of the UNGA special emergency session since April 1997, we have not yet seen one assembly resolution seeking to authorize sanctions against Israel or Russia. However, at this time, the UNGA should ask at least all representatives to expel both states, and to impose broad diplomatic, economic and military sanctions-all UN members-to the UN members. At that time with those States. Return to full compliance with the UN Charter provisions.

One such provision of the Charter is contained in Article 25: “UN Members agree to accept and conclude the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with this Charter”. The recent decision was adopted by the CUNE in its resolution 2728 of 25 March 2024, in relation to the continued assault of Israel against Palestinian: “Repeat claiming that all parties fulfill their obligations under international law, with their It includes international humanitarian law and international human rights law ”, (1)“ An immediate ceasefire claims… by all parties leading to a surviving sustainable ceasefire ”, and (2)“ Emphasize the urgent need for flow of the Humanitarian assistance to civilians in the Gaza Strip as a whole to extend and strengthen ... in accordance with international humanitarian law ”.

If Israel cannot be compelled-a state of about 7.5 million (if we exclude the 21% of Palestinian-Israel citizens)-forced to adhere to the latest UNSC resolution again-its obligations Under UN chart is respected as long as it is. Still a member of these-so what hope the United Nations could impose on the likes of China-a permanent member/veto-wielding of UNSC-the day of one 2.0 is faced with its will Self-time-minute 'over Taiwan? Unfortunately UN Chart 2.0 must be announced in its dead letter today, and the UNGA seems to be unwilling or able to give a state of 7.5 million - heavily dependent on international trade - to its obligations for the UNGA Compliance: the same assembly that its resolutions (not yet revoked) give Israel a legal author under international law.

French President Emmanuel Macron, recently suggested that French troops could be sent to Ukraine to help fight against Russian invasion: a recommendation in the media as a radical thing. The most interesting thing about Macron's recommendation is not only that it is far from radical, but it was fully predicted in Chart 2.0 of 1945: “Nothing in this charter weakening the basic individual or collective self -defense right If an armed attack occurs on a United Nations member, until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security ”.

However, before we reached French troops officially within Ukraine, France should first - unlike the diplomatic machines it made in 1936 in favor of Italy Mussolini - to be at The Authorization request - by the UNGA - the full range of sanctions available against both Russia and Israel: from which the immediate expulsion of all its Embassy team from all states that he loves peace on the planet, and taking It indicates that the UN Charter is read the same regardless of the discerning state in question or the color of victims. In April 1946, at the final assembly session of the 1.0, the French delegation confirmed:

It was not the failed contract. It was not deficient principles. The nations were neglected. It was the governments who abandoned it.

All governments who love peace must take measures immediately to save the 2.0. There is no reason to believe that the 3.0 will ever exist.

Cameron Hunt is author of Pax Unita - a new solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.