The UN Without Any Peace Keeping Or Peace Enforcing Authority.

Since the troops for UN operations are provided by member states from their own forces on a voluntary basis, not much of a change. The nations that sent troops under the UN umbrella can still send them on their own with the cover of a UN resolution.

OTL:
1. UN says "Bad People! We're going to send troops!"
2. Member states provide the troops, and all their support, to go make the Bad People play nice.

ATL:
1. UN says "Bad People! We're going to ask our members to send troops!"
2. Member states provide the troops, and all their support, to go make the Bad People play nice. Wait, that sounds familiar...

Considering how ineffective UN 'peacekeepers' often are, there might be no net difference at all.
 
What Gridley said, basically the UN is very, very squeamish about doing things that involve coercion, only the Security Council can make binding resolutions.

The glory of the United Nations isn't that it's a world police organization but that it provides a forum for nations to resolve disputes and attempts to do so in the most fair and balanced manner possible, does it have a whole string of failures? You bet your ass it does, but then again imagine half the shit they have to deal with EVERY DAY in that organization.

The UN technically has all of zero authority on a particular matter unless the international community decides as a whole to give it such, it didn't just roll into East Timor one day and decide to help it transition to independence from being a very, very unwilling part of Indonesia, it had to be voted the authority to transition East Timor into Timor-Leste. The UN still fails to significantly affect the outcome of multiple issues today because people don't approve of it, that's why you see the African Union holding down the fort in Sudan as best it can and not a huge UN peacekeeping brigade, China's going to veto that shit if they try.
 
Top