This is the Message Centre for Nosebagbadger {Ace}
- 1
- 2
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Started conversation Oct 10, 2015
Hi Nbb
I'm your Sub-editor for League of Nations. The new version is A87859372 - please subscribe.
This is interesting - the League was covered in brief detail in my History lessons at school, so I find the Entry very informative
I didn't follow the sentence:
"2 nations (Argentina and Brazil) would not even make it as members until the end of the 1920, but six new nations would join rapidly, in December 1920."
I checked the links to the timelines, and they suggest Argentina and Brazil were members in January 1920. Can you clarify this please?
I've read up to the Organs section. I made quite a few changes to the GuideML, to break paragraphs up a bit, but let me know if there's anything you don't like and I'll change it again.
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Oct 11, 2015
All the GuideML changes look fine
Argentina did leave in 1921 (though it seems more like they became inactive, then paid their arrears in 1933 are rejoined).
Not quite sure what I meant by that line however - you're right in that it doesn't seem to make much sense - good spot!
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Oct 11, 2015
Thanks Nbb - I deleted the reference to Argentina and Brazil, as they were included in the 42, so that looks fine now.
If you're happy, I'll send the Entry on to the next stage of the process, and I shall look out for more Entries in the Project
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Apr 29, 2016
Cheers!
Not quite sure why I went and read it - I already knew what was in it!
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Jun 8, 2016
I'm sub-editing the Main Organs of the United Nations now. The new Entry is A87872755 - please subscribe!
I had a few questions on reading through:
"There are 15 rotating judges from different nations on the ICJ bench. However to encourage countries to take their cases to the ICJ, any party gets to provide their own judge to the bench. This is to allow their side of judicial opinions to be held, as presumably the two judges will cancel each other out."
So, there are 15 judges, but only one sits on the bench at a time?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cancel each other out" - if the judge from the party agrees with the party and the other judge disagrees, what happens then?
"the most notable case was on the legality of nuclear weapons - a case which 22 states would argue their case in front of the court"
Is this saying that 22 states did argue their case at some point?
"The ECOSOC is made up of 54 members, proportionally drawn from around the world"
What does it mean "proportionally drawn"?
up to the Trusteeship Council, but lunchtime is an illusion, sorry
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Jun 8, 2016
Hi,
So, there are 15 judges (drawn in a rotating pattern from various countries), all of whom sit on a decision.
However, a decision between, say, Australia vs Japan (a recent case), would mean they could both supply a judge (if they didn't already have one on the bench) - meaning that there were actually 17 judges. They "cancel out" because these extra judges always vote in favour of their country (and thus not affecting the overall vote count)
The case on legality of nuclear weapons wasn't a country vs country case, so it was just the "normal" 15 judges.
"the most notable case was on the legality of nuclear weapons - a case which 22 states would argue their case in front of the court"
Is this saying that 22 states did argue their case at some point?"
I think so (in the sense of what I think you are saying matches what I said :S )
Multi-member councils (ECOSOC, Security Council etc) are drawn in a distributed pattern around the world in proportional "regional groups"
It's a nuisance to explain in detail (hence why its not there), but there are five groupings:
Western European and Others (WEOG)
Asia-Pacific Group
Eastern Europe
Latin America and Carribean Group (GRULAC...yes it makes no sense as an acronym)
African Group
The proportion given to each block depends extremely roughly on how many countries are in each - 18 allocated to African states, 13 to Asian states, 8 to East European states, 13 to Latin American and Caribbean states and 13 to West European and other states.
I can do a summary of all of that, but trying to do so proved tricky when I considered it elsewhere
More than happy to answer questions at the moment since I'm relatively free of urgent work (lots of work I should be doing....but nothing I don't want to procrastinate from!)
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Jun 9, 2016
Thanks Nbb
I see why it is a nuisance to explain the proportions of the ECOSOC - I've tweaked the sentence a bit, so I hope you think that's OK, but let me know if not.
In the Secretariat Section:
"Most of the failures that can be ascribed to the UN are that it is slow to act, or it fails to resolve conflicts sent to it - but these are political aspects, which are supposed to be dealt with in the next two organs. The Secretariat has been accused at times of being clunky and slow to react - attacks that are certainly justified"
Here it seems to be saying that the UN is slow to act, but that's not because of the Secretariat, but then it says that the Secretariat is slow to act, so I'd be pleased if you could let me know how you think it should be tweaked.
That's the end of my lunchtime again - enjoy your procrastination! laugh>
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Jun 9, 2016
Yes there is a rather swing contrast
Perhaps change the latter sentence to
"However, the Secretariat itself has also been accused of being unnecessarily clunky and slow its structure and purpose in a changing world - attacks that certainly are partially justified."
In effect, the first sentence is that most specific instances where the UN is slow to act are the fault of specific political organs, whereas the Secretariat is more slow to change in an overall sense (rather than dealing with specific instances)
And is this some new form of diet method you've taken up?!
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Jun 10, 2016
Thanks Nbb - I have made that tweak
I like to practice multi-tasking so I eat and read at the same time
Next questions:
"dictatorial figures who like to travel wildly" - can I just check you mean "wildly" rather than "widely" - I like the sound of it but then I thought it might be a typo...
"Charter of the United Nations actually requires states to pony up forces if required by the Security Council. However, such demands are not necessary, with many contributing forces."
I'm not familiar with "pony up forces" although I like the sound of it also Could you say more about what that paragraph means?
Up to the General Assembly section
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Jun 10, 2016
"One note concerning the GA's powers refer to that of moving around the Security Council. "
I'm not sure what this means.
"This can come in several forms, whether it be by taking actions that lie with the GA's sole remit or by taking actions usually controlled by the Security Council alone. The example of the former might be that of Palestine. Recently the USA vetoed Palestinian membership of the UN in the Security Council, in response the GA voted Palestine as a full-observer State"
Does this mean that the GA has sole remit for deciding on full-observer states, so they got round the Security Council's judgement by making a different judgement?
" The extreme stretching of the law means this has rarely been used"
Does this mean that the Uniting for Peace resolution involves stretching the law?
"One very obvious example is when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was selected - the GA had demanded that the next Secretary-General come from Africa, and so they did."
Example of what? That the GA would fail any other suggestion that the Security Council made for the Secretary-General?
"but now meets almost all the year" - can you expand on this a bit? Is it almost 24/7?
Phew - I have now read to the end, and I'm in awe of your knowledge about these complicated intertwined organs Not my specialist subject but very useful to learn about
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Jun 10, 2016
Alas, I suppose it probably should be widely, if we're being all boring and proper and suchlike
I'd always thought "pony up x" is a common phrase for contribute or give up or grudgingly provide.
Evidently, if that's just people refusing to accept my own reality then it can be changed.
So it roughly means
The Charter actually requires States to provide forces if requires.
However
It usually isn't necessary to use this requirement since sufficient forces are contributed voluntarily.
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Jun 10, 2016
Moving around the SC means taking action despite the Security Council wanting to act (or not act) in a different way
And yes, that is exactly right - observer status is purely a GA decision, so they got round the full-country SC judgement by making the judgement that they could.
The Uniting for Peace resolution is indeed a rather stretchy interpretation of the Charter, and certainly not in the spirit of the original construction (which had the major powers wanting control to flow through them!)
Yes, the example is that the GA threatened to fail any non-African candidate, so the SC chose one who would satisfy the requirements.
By meets almost all the year it's more of a normal working hours, but most of the year thing. Though this does mean that everyone is around if something comes along that does necessitate meeting at odder times of the week.
And congratulations at wading through it all - I quite rapidly came to the conclusion that I didn't know as much as I thought I had before starting!
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Jun 11, 2016
Thanks Nbb
I see "pony up" is indeed a phrase for paying up, so I left that as is, and made the other tweaks. I have added in more links too.
I hope that's all OK for you, but let me know if there is anything you'd like me to change. Then I will send it on its way towards the Front Page - an asset to the h2g2 Guide
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Oct 13, 2016
Hi Nbb
I'm sub-editing The Charter of the United Nations now. The new version is A87878209 - please subscribe!
I didn't read the Entry in my lunchtime this time, so I enjoyed it all in one go Just a few questions:
"only countries that had signed the Declaration and declared war on Germany by March 1945 could attend"
Attend what?
"all the Head Delegates gathered in Opera House"
Which Opera House is this?
"parts of the Charter are either very dry, pertaining to just matters of procedure, or defunct."
Can you say something about what you chose to cover in this Entry? Presumably you picked out the most interesting sections?
"Now, whether you think the contents of the Charter are worthwhile and effective or not worth the paper it was written on is up for argument and indeed it is, as is the case with all of the United Nations."
I'm not quite sure what this is saying - are you saying that everything to do with the UN can be argued about?
United Nations project
Nosebagbadger {Ace} Posted Oct 20, 2016
Sorry for the delayed response - immediate run up to joining the world of work getting in the way
Perhaps the "could attend" should be altered to "could participate"
I'll put a short something together focusing on what is important/interesting (alas, not always the same thing)
And yes, I did mean to say everything about the UN's effectiveness/worthwhile(ness?) can be (and is) up for argument
United Nations project
SashaQ - happysad Posted Oct 20, 2016
No worries - I had a holiday from work last week, so was able to tackle this in one go, but I understand how it is.
Thanks for the clarifications
Key: Complain about this post
- 1
- 2
United Nations project
- 1: SashaQ - happysad (Oct 10, 2015)
- 2: SashaQ - happysad (Oct 11, 2015)
- 3: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Oct 11, 2015)
- 4: SashaQ - happysad (Oct 11, 2015)
- 5: h2g2 Guide Editors (Apr 25, 2016)
- 6: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Apr 29, 2016)
- 7: SashaQ - happysad (Jun 8, 2016)
- 8: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Jun 8, 2016)
- 9: SashaQ - happysad (Jun 9, 2016)
- 10: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Jun 9, 2016)
- 11: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Jun 9, 2016)
- 12: SashaQ - happysad (Jun 10, 2016)
- 13: SashaQ - happysad (Jun 10, 2016)
- 14: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Jun 10, 2016)
- 15: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Jun 10, 2016)
- 16: SashaQ - happysad (Jun 11, 2016)
- 17: h2g2 Guide Editors (Sep 26, 2016)
- 18: SashaQ - happysad (Oct 13, 2016)
- 19: Nosebagbadger {Ace} (Oct 20, 2016)
- 20: SashaQ - happysad (Oct 20, 2016)
More Conversations for Nosebagbadger {Ace}
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."