How is the UNSC structured?how is membership determined? and what reforms have been suggested on this issur?
398045
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/
35274
the security council was established after world war 2 and first met in 1946.  it is comprised of 5 permanent member nations:  the US, the UK, china, russia, and france;  and 10 non-permanent member nations that are elected by the general assembly for 2-year terms.\n\nobviously the permanent members were chosen because they were the victors in the 2nd world war.  this was because the purpose of the security council was to investigate and deal with situations that could cause international crises - things that could lead to war or developments that threatened the international peace.  \n\nthe 5 permanent members were regarded at the time as the most powerful nations and as such were the ones able to put serious weight behind the security council's resolutions.  i mean, if the members were chosen randomly and at some time, say, the security council happened to be made up of belgium, the federated states of micronesia, togo, french guyana and uzbekistan, NOBODY would take them seriously.  the reason for the permanent members was to address this weakness that was found in the UN's precursor, the "League of Nations".\n\nyou can find out a lot more about the security council at it's homepage:\nhttp://www.un.org/Docs/sc/
593198
Nothing. After WWII, we basically founded and funded the UN as a way to  prevent other hot wars. And prevent starvation, genocide, and other world problems. Works well, doesn't it?\nWe got our language, freedom, Constitution, and values LONG before the United Nations. Get them out of the US, and the US out of the UN!
61835
Without significant reform it is unlikely to continue with a meaningful existance, but I think most western nations will force this to happen before allowing it to completely dissolve.\n\nAt the end of the day it is a forum to get the nations of the world around a single table. Naturally, it is not possible to drive clear consensus in such situations. So it is difficult to criticize it because of inaction or slowness. I doubt there is a silver bullet to that particular problem.\n\nTo think the UN can resolve major issues facing the world today is niaive. At the end of the day that will fall on the shoulders of the larger nations. What it cannot do is get in the way. It must ensure dialogue is flowing and that diplomatic solutions are pursued to global issues. However once these grind to a halt or fail, it must excuse itself from the proceedings.
560577
Yes it's true. Fifa: 207 UN: 191\n\nCheck details and You will get it right:\nhttp://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/na/index.html\nand\nhttp://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
266717
In my opinion, it should require a majority vote at the Security Council - the Veto should be abolished. Also, only those countries that are 100% fully paid on their United Nations Dues should be allowed to sit on the Security Counil.
243266
The United Nations is weak, indeed. The weakness of the organization stems from the widespread corruption throughout its ranks.\n\nMany of the UN's poorer members (as well as many of its socialist members) view it as an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Take a look at the amount of money contributed by each member nation versus the benefits received by each member nation. I am not saying that helping poorer countries is bad. Indeed, every nation should help out as much as they can. However, help should be voluntary and not forced through the United Nations.\n\nMany top individuals are corrupt, including the Secretary General. If you think the US government is corrupt regarding some of the defense no-bid contracts, you should look up what goes on in the United Nations. Not only are no-bid contracts common, NOBODY can summon the records. When an investigation becomes necessary, it is always conducted by UN members who find no wrongdoing. The company that Kofi Annan's son works for received numerous such contracts.\n\nThese are things that I certainly DO NOT want my tax dollars paying for.\n\nNOTE FOR EMILYROSE: An organization for peace is certainly a worthy goal. But when diplomatic options have failed, the UN has shown in recent history that they have nothing to back up their resolutions. Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN for a decade before something was done - and it wasn't the UN that did it. Countless resolutions regarding the Palestinian state and Israel have been passed (some for and some against each state). Each government laughs them off. Iran is now thumbing its nose at the UN. We'll see what happens. If the United Nations is not willing to go to war to back up the resolutions of the international community, they should disband and all go home because nothing will ever get accomplished. Kind of like what is happening now.
104212
TRY THIS LINK\nhttp://www.un.org/
659773
The security council (UNSC) was not a failure when it comes to working against muslims of the world and passing laws against the muslim people hardly impacting the corrupt muslim regimes. \n\nLike it did in Iraq by killing more than a million children after first gulf war, same happened with Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Egypt, and the list goes on and on.\n\nThe puppet rulers are actually getting all the gains of these resolutions passedby the UNSC, after sometime USA start deciding to attack all of these muslim countires and there is not a sinlge resolution in the UNSC to prevent this idiotic and disastrous steps taken by the morons Bush, Blair and their followers.\n\nTherefore, it is highly in-effective and highly mis-trusted by the muslims of the world. In fact, it is the enemy who always either provide covers to murder our people or keep silent on the actions against us.\n\nThey need to be fixed too.
188866
less developed country or lower developed country\n\nA country designated by the UN as LDC based on criteria of low per capita GDP, weak human resources (life expectancy, calorie intake, etc.), and a low level of economic diversification (share of manufacturing and other measures). As of 2002 there are 49 LDCs.
1124275
They are too wrapped up with domestic issues. There has been a civil war there for over a decade. Who else is not a member? Aren't there only 72 nations...shouldn't there be more?\n\nWhale Killers Suck!
595901
Just a couple of ideas..\n\n(1) reform the UN\nhttp://heal-the-earth.org\n\n(2) institute unions representing each major region\nhttp://americas-union.org\nhttp://arabian-union.org\nhttp://asia-union.org\nhttp://africans-union.org\nhttp://oceanic-union.org\nhttp://euro-union.org\n\n(3) developing a 25 yr plan for the planet\nhttp://u-s-m.org
452489
In the General Assembly, each country is entitled to one vote on any issue.\n\nIn the Security Council, things are about different.  Only 15 countries sit on the Council, and 5 of them are permanent.  The five permanent members (China, Britain, France, the United States, and Russia) still all have one vote, as do the 10 others.  The permanent members, however, all have the power to veto any legislation.  So if just one of the permanent members disagrees with the resolution, it will fail.
671984
When the United Nations was created many Arab nations were waring or just didn't want in. Now that the UN has expanded its the original members that are permanent, but thats only in terms of veto power. Now that there are so many countries with different agendas there are rotating positions that have veto power to ensure others have that power at times. But it wasn't because they wanted to screw other countries, it was simply timing. Wilson wanted a UN of sorts but it took till after WWII to finally do it.
1072576
the world bank\nhttp://www.worldbank.org/index.html\nit was formally organized in 1945, when 28 countries ratified the agreement; there are now 183 members. The bank not only makes loans to member nations, but, under government guarantee, to private investors, for the purpose of facilitating productive investment, encouraging foreign trade, and discharging burdens of international debt. All members of the bank must also belong to the International Monetary Fund. The bank is self-sustaining and has maintained a profit on its lending activities. It is controlled by a board of governors, one from each member state. Votes are allocated according to capital subscription. Ordinary affairs are conducted by 22 executive directors, five appointed by the five largest capital subscribers, the United States, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and France, and 17 elected by the remaining members. Regional vice presidents oversee the bank's operations in five regions: Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, East Africa, West Africa, and (in one grouping) Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
56453
Yes, UN is outdated and could not survive without the U.S.A. The big fix is that the security council needs to be re-constituted with the following most populous and influential nations in the 21st Century:\n\nUSA\nChina\nRussia\nIndia\nEuropean Union\nIndonesia\nBrazil
1156197
My understanding of the United Nations is a confederation of Nation-States who have come together to avoid violent conflict in times of political distress.\n\nAs far as it's effectiveness or lack thereof I refer to my first statement.  As a confederation most of the power still belongs to the Nation-States and therefore renders the overall body null and void.  (Example: The Iraq War was widely opposed by the UN)