Skip to main content

How has the United Nations evolved with respect to its purpose and principles?

The original goal of the United Nations (UN) was to maintain global peace and security and to develop friendly nations. Developers of the UN expected all nations involved to work closely together towards humanitarian goals and preserving peace. However, the Cold War immediately created friction between the Soviet Union and the other nations that made it difficult for the UN to fulfill its original goals. Since then, the UN has fluctuated with respect to assertiveness in restoring peace.

One of the original goals had been to establish a UN military, created by the Military Staff Committee and directed by the Security Council. Yet, the committee was unable agree about any plans for the military, mostly due to the Soviet Union's opposition. Similarly, no agreements were reached concerning disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament. A UN military was not established until the Korean War, with the US providing most of the fighting power.

Problems have arisen when members of the Security Council were able to veto the council's actions. To remedy the problem, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution was adopted in 1950, which gave the General Assembly permission to act when the Security Council was paralyzed by veto. However, the resolution doesn't provide a basis for using force to restore peace; therefore, the resolution has "never developed workable enforcement machinery" ("United Nations," The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2016). Since the resolution, the UN was most assertive in "enforcing the Gulf War cease-fire resolutions in the early 1990s" but has since then not been as assertive in establishing or maintaining peace in "Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Côte d'Ivore" ("United Nations").

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more