This is the Message Centre for Nosebagbadger {Ace}

United Nations project

Post 1

SashaQ - happysad

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 smiley - ok

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.

smiley - ok

United Nations project

Post 2

SashaQ - happysad

I've read to the end now - see what you think smiley - ok

United Nations project

Post 3

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

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!

smiley - smiley

United Nations project

Post 4

SashaQ - happysad

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 smiley - ok

United Nations project

Post 5

h2g2 Guide Editors

Congratulations! The League of Nations is on the Front Page today smiley - magic

United Nations project

Post 6

Nosebagbadger {Ace}


Not quite sure why I went and read it - I already knew what was in it!

United Nations project

Post 7

SashaQ - happysad

smiley - biggrin

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"?

smiley - book up to the Trusteeship Council, but lunchtime is an illusion, sorry

United Nations project

Post 8

Nosebagbadger {Ace}


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

Post 9

SashaQ - happysad

Thanks Nbb smiley - biggrin

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

Post 10

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

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

Post 11

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

smiley - doh

"and slow to alter its structure..."

United Nations project

Post 12

SashaQ - happysad

Thanks Nbb - I have made that tweak smiley - ok

I like to practice multi-tasking so I eat and read at the same time smiley - laugh

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 smiley - biker 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 smiley - pony Could you say more about what that paragraph means?

smiley - book Up to the General Assembly section

United Nations project

Post 13

SashaQ - happysad

"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 smiley - ok Not my specialist subject but very useful to learn about smiley - biggrin

United Nations project

Post 14

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

Alas, I suppose it probably should be widely, if we're being all boring and proper and suchlike smiley - run

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.
It usually isn't necessary to use this requirement since sufficient forces are contributed voluntarily.

United Nations project

Post 15

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

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!

smiley - tea

United Nations project

Post 16

SashaQ - happysad

Thanks Nbb smiley - teasmiley - biggrin

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 smiley - biggrin - an asset to the h2g2 Guide smiley - ok

United Nations project

Post 17

h2g2 Guide Editors

Congratulations! The Main Organs of the United Nations Entry is on the Front Page today smiley - magic

United Nations project

Post 18

SashaQ - happysad

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 smiley - ok 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?

smiley - ok

United Nations project

Post 19

Nosebagbadger {Ace}

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

Post 20

SashaQ - happysad

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 smiley - ok

Key: Complain about this post