this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
59 points (98.4% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really sure it would work. The security council legitimizes actual wars. In that case I'm okay with there being too much safeguards. The same goes for the EU. If we actually decide to invade a country, I'd prefer it that all 27 member states are unanimous. If everyone from Hungary to Ireland decides that a county needs bombing, then I believe it.
Apart from such things I do agree with you. For most policies (e.g. sanctions) we shouldn't need unanimity. Though in some cases a bigger qualified majority (like 75% of population and states) might be better.
Within EU there are proposals to move to QMV for most topics (spanish presidency still pushing this), problem is vetos block such reform. EU doesn't have any power to invade (yet?). Regarding UN, most processes, like UNFCCC and even IPCC, operate by consensus - this dilutes many outcomes, itβs a pity. As for UN-SC, its record of helping is not great, just legitimizes old power, maybe should be abolished. I'd rather see a weighted GA vote (maybe excluding parties to a conflict).