Different UN rules

When the UN is formed, it operates mostly the same as OTL UN, but with these differences:

  1. ANY state that controls a significant amouont of territory gets a seat in the General Assembly. Regardless of whether it is generally recognised or not.
  2. The UN Security Council will have 15 senior members, 2 from each continent, plus 2 from the Middle East, plus the USSR or its major successor state, who are elected for 10-year terms in 1950, 1960, etc., by the independent nations of their continents, and who can veto anything passed by the General Assembly, BUT ONLY IF AT LEAST THREE OF THE SENIOR MEMBERS AGREE TO VETO A SPECIFIC PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Until the time of the 1950 elections, the 15 senior members shall be: the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, the United Kingdom, France, the USSR, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, the Republic of China, India, Australia, and New Zealand.
  3. The UN Security Council will have 28 junior members, 4 from each continent plus 4 from the Middle East, who are elected for 1-year terms in 1946, 1947, etc., by the independent nations of their continents, and who lack veto power. Until the time of the 1946 elections, the 28 junior members shall be Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ethiopia, Liberia, 2 vacant seats for Africa until there are sufficient independent nations in Africa to fill them, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Palestine, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Philippines, Siam, and 4 vacant seats for Oceania until there are sufficient independent nations in Oceania to fill them.
  4. For the purposes of the United Nations, the Middle East is defined as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, all British territories in the Arabian Peninsula, and Palestine.
  5. Members of the UN Security Council will be elected as follows: all citizens or residents at or above the age of 16 in each continent and the Middle East shall vote in UN-supervised elections on 1 January, giving their 6 top choices (in the years 1950, 1960, etc.) or their 4 top choices (in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc.) from the independent nations of that continent or region, upon which the independent nations of that continent or region shall, from the 12 (in the years 1950, 1960, etc.) or 8 (in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc.) top choices over the entire continent, pick their 2 choices for the Security Council, those votes being required to be for different countries, and each nation being forbidden to vote for itself. In the years 1950, 1960, etc., the 2 top choices shall then become senior members of the Council, and the 4 runner-up choices shall become junior members of the Council; in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc., the 4 top choices shall become junior members of the Council. In the years other than 1950, 1960, etc., serving senior members of the Council may not stand for election; this is to prevent a nation from serving as a senior and a junior member simultaneously.
  6. Any city in which the UN General Assembly meets shall be the sovereign territory of the United Nations for as long as the UN General Assembly is in session.
  7. Delegates from any nation to the United Nations shall enjoy full diplomatic immunity for as long as they serve as delegates.
  8. Any nation that interferes in any way with the elections to the UN Security Council, that violates the sovereignty of the United Nations in any way, or fails to respect the diplomatic immunity of delegates to the United Nations, shall have its membership suspended for a period of one year starting at the moment of the offense and be required to host UN peacekeepers on its territory for a period of one year starting at the moment of the offense. Any vote or other action in the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council taken by a nation whose membership has been suspended is considered null and void. Nations whose membership has been suspended may continue to send delegates to the UN General Assembly, but these delegates are forbidden to vote for the duration of the suspension of membership of their mother country. Citizens or residents of a nation whose membership has been suspended are still allowed to vote in Security Council elections, but any nation whose membership is suspended at the time of the elections will not be among the choices for the Security Council.
  9. If a nation serving on the UN Security Council has its membership suspended, the nation in question is stripped of its membership on the Security Council and the seat it previously occupied shall be considered vacant until the next elections to the Security Council take place. If the nation in question is a senior member of the Security Council, the next scheduled elections to the Security Council will include the election of a new senior member to the Security Council, to stand until the next year 1950, 1960, etc.
  10. If a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly is unable to be present due to illness or any other reason, they will be recorded as Absent. If the delegate is able to vote remotely (such as via telephone or telegraph) but is unable to be present, they shall vote remotely and their vote shall be counted as if they were present and voted.

How well would this work?
 
When the UN is formed, it operates mostly the same as OTL UN, but with these differences:

  1. ANY state that controls a significant amount of territory gets a seat in the General Assembly. Regardless of whether it is generally recognised or not...
How well would this work?
I'm not sure it would. Why would any country sign up to an organisation that tells them they'll provide equal standing to any revolutionary or terrorist that manages to take over part of their territory? The idea of turning over the sovereignty of one of their cities simply for the honour, aka. pain in the arse, of hosting it seems highly unlikely to me as well. And a Security Council with what's roughly a quarter of all the UN member states as it is does make me question what the point of it is.
 
I'm not sure it would. Why would any country sign up to an organisation that tells them they'll provide equal standing to any revolutionary or terrorist that manages to take over part of their territory? The idea of turning over the sovereignty of one of their cities simply for the honour, aka. pain in the arse, of hosting it seems highly unlikely to me as well. And a Security Council with what's roughly a quarter of all the UN member states as it is does make me question what the point of it is.

The best bit is that it makes sure there's no liberum veto in the Security Council and it eliminates the eternal membership in the Security Council.
 
The best bit is that it makes sure there's no liberum veto in the Security Council and it eliminates the eternal membership in the Security Council.

I doubt the major countries would sign on those an organisation with these rules to begin with. As Simon said (seems like the begining of a joke....), as per the rules, any revolutionary group that manage to hold on to a piece of land would get a seat which would seem to only encourage more instability by having a "might makes right" entryway which would defeat the purpose of making the UN as envisioned by some of its proponents.
 
Not to mention that the "eternal membership of the Security Council" was very appealing to several individuals/polities who might otherwise have a problem with the UN.
 

iddt3

Donor
When the UN is formed, it operates mostly the same as OTL UN, but with these differences:

  1. Members of the UN Security Council will be elected as follows: all citizens or residents at or above the age of 16 in each continent and the Middle East shall vote in UN-supervised elections on 1 January, giving their 6 top choices (in the years 1950, 1960, etc.) or their 4 top choices (in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc.) from the independent nations of that continent or region, upon which the independent nations of that continent or region shall, from the 12 (in the years 1950, 1960, etc.) or 8 (in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc.) top choices over the entire continent, pick their 2 choices for the Security Council, those votes being required to be for different countries, and each nation being forbidden to vote for itself. In the years 1950, 1960, etc., the 2 top choices shall then become senior members of the Council, and the 4 runner-up choices shall become junior members of the Council; in the years other than 1950, 1960, etc., the 4 top choices shall become junior members of the Council. In the years other than 1950, 1960, etc., serving senior members of the Council may not stand for election; this is to prevent a nation from serving as a senior and a junior member simultaneously.

How well would this work?

This provision makes absolutely no sense, not only would no one agree to it, it would have the bizarre effect of, for example, making sure that in NA it was impossible for the US to win a seat as they were by far the largest voting block and they can't vote for themselves.
 
This provision makes absolutely no sense, not only would no one agree to it, it would have the bizarre effect of, for example, making sure that in NA it was impossible for the US to win a seat as they were by far the largest voting block and they can't vote for themselves.

You don't quite get it. It's only in the second phase, where the country as a whole casts its 4 or 6 votes, where it can't vote for itself. The people in the United States are allowed to all vote for the United States - this just ensures that it gets on the ballot for phase 2, the final selection.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The best bit is that it makes sure there's no liberum veto in the Security Council and it eliminates the eternal membership in the Security Council.
It won't be accepted precisely because everybody who could make the UN possible wanted permanent monopoly on real decision making power in the UN, which means permanent security council seats.

There were basically two UN institutions which really mattered: the security council, and the world bank (not formally an UN organization but still). Those two are the big boy's table and permanent hegemony on both institutions by certain states was the price for the UN's existence in the first place.
 
Top