I have seen a player or two bash the structure of the United Nations Security Council here. I'm here to explain why the SC has five members with veto power over all resolutions, and why that is a good idea.
The purpose of the UN is simple. It is intended to prevent war by providing a forum for nations to discuss their disagreements in a rather civil manner. It is not, however, some kind of dystopic scheme to establish some kind of global government.
The Permanent Members have veto power for a good reason. This reason is neither corrupt or immoral.
At the time the SC was established the governments given permanent member status were considered the "Great Powers." That is, they have the strongest militaries in their respective regions and the world.
Foreign policy must be understood in terms of national interest. There is not, in the history of the entire world, a single instance of a nation invading another for purely humanitarian reasons. It doesn't happen. All nations, to some degree, are relatively corrupt. (RP note: If your IC government is absolutely devoid of corruption of any kind, it is grossly unrealistic.)
As the strongest military powers in the world, the Big 5 are likely to have clashes of interest. And as nations with strong militaries, they have every intention of using military force to defend their interests if they are threatened by another power. This is an unavoidable fact.
The UNSC is not designed to defend freedom, justice, and so forth. It is designed to prevent further world wars. So the justification behind the UNSC structure is this: Allowing the strongest military powers in the world to defend their interests by diplomacy, by vetoing all potential threats to it, prevents them from doing it by force of arms.
The UNSC allows the Big 5 to step on each others toes in the SC chamber, instead of stepping on each other twos with... nukes.
So while the Russia and China have prevented intervention in some autocratic nations, it has prevented unwarranted civilian deaths in them.
Interventionists (RL and IC) are rather quixotic. I mean this in the most literal sense of the word -- they trample about like knight errants charged with fixing every conceivable wrong in the world, and are happily oblivious to any and all unintended consequences. One must come to understand one thing: Human rights atrocities are inherent in the human condition. They cannot and will not be stopped. Attempting to prevent them is indeed noble, but one must understand that they will never be eradicated.
In war, civilian deaths happen. In foreign intervention, one must weigh the greater good on a personal level. One must ask the question: Will more people die, be displaced, or otherwise be made uncomfortable than under $DESPOT?
The purpose of the UN is simple. It is intended to prevent war by providing a forum for nations to discuss their disagreements in a rather civil manner. It is not, however, some kind of dystopic scheme to establish some kind of global government.
The Permanent Members have veto power for a good reason. This reason is neither corrupt or immoral.
At the time the SC was established the governments given permanent member status were considered the "Great Powers." That is, they have the strongest militaries in their respective regions and the world.
Foreign policy must be understood in terms of national interest. There is not, in the history of the entire world, a single instance of a nation invading another for purely humanitarian reasons. It doesn't happen. All nations, to some degree, are relatively corrupt. (RP note: If your IC government is absolutely devoid of corruption of any kind, it is grossly unrealistic.)
As the strongest military powers in the world, the Big 5 are likely to have clashes of interest. And as nations with strong militaries, they have every intention of using military force to defend their interests if they are threatened by another power. This is an unavoidable fact.
The UNSC is not designed to defend freedom, justice, and so forth. It is designed to prevent further world wars. So the justification behind the UNSC structure is this: Allowing the strongest military powers in the world to defend their interests by diplomacy, by vetoing all potential threats to it, prevents them from doing it by force of arms.
The UNSC allows the Big 5 to step on each others toes in the SC chamber, instead of stepping on each other twos with... nukes.
So while the Russia and China have prevented intervention in some autocratic nations, it has prevented unwarranted civilian deaths in them.
Interventionists (RL and IC) are rather quixotic. I mean this in the most literal sense of the word -- they trample about like knight errants charged with fixing every conceivable wrong in the world, and are happily oblivious to any and all unintended consequences. One must come to understand one thing: Human rights atrocities are inherent in the human condition. They cannot and will not be stopped. Attempting to prevent them is indeed noble, but one must understand that they will never be eradicated.
In war, civilian deaths happen. In foreign intervention, one must weigh the greater good on a personal level. One must ask the question: Will more people die, be displaced, or otherwise be made uncomfortable than under $DESPOT?