The problem is not internationalism, it's trying to do it through states.

"Sympathisers might argue that those failures are due to the compromises that were made when it was established, rendering it subject to the whims of states, denying its potential as the effective representative of individuals, and human rights."

What do you expect of a body that is made of states, without regard to the nature of the state as a monopolist of aggressive force, without regard to the history of states as the worst abusers of human rights?

If the purpose is "effective representation" of individuals, why would anyone think this would be better done by the UN, than by those individuals themselves by their voluntary preferences and relations?

Faced with the dreadful failures and crimes of earlier states, earlier statists merely decided that the solution must be bigger states with a greater concentration of power further removed from the individual

Dear Glenda,

The UN has outlived its relevance. It has suffered the inevitable demise of all bodies that run by committee, compromise and idea’s.

It seems that the reason for the UN not having solutions is because it does not understand the questions; it only has academic, socio-political thought bubbles to guide it.

It has lost credibility by embracing those nations who demonstrate the greatest propensity for breaching UN ideology, by creating problems through applying obsolete mandates, by embracing political science, by failing those who look to it to provide social justice and equity, by interfering in global trading markets and distorting them, by consigning aid recipient nations to the status quo, by mutating into a body of elites divorced from real life and by being driven by abstracts with which they expect the rest of the world to comply.

It adds no value except in the minds of humanities ideology. Apart from that, all is just hunky dory

Jardine K. Jardine - If the purpose is "effective representation" of individuals, why would anyone think this would be better done by the UN, than by those individuals themselves by their voluntary preferences and relations?

Representation of individuals has long been little more than a fairy story to appease the masses, the whole goal under any political regime in the past fifty years & probably more has been power & influence in furtherance of outright personal greed (in socialist systems) plus multinationalism, consumerism, the love of money, and the economic growth paradigm in every other. As I've said ad infinitum, until or unless the sheeple recognize that human nature is inherently corrupt and therefore they must demand establishment of truly robust checks & balances BEFORE awarding power, we'll continue to lurch from one disaster to the next.

It is fitting that the U.N. is located in the U.S., given that it is no more than a tool of the U.S.

And given that the U.S. is the major imperial nation of the world, and the world's biggest warmonger and bully, it is imperative that the U.N. should be removed from American soil ASAP.

The U.N. should be relocated in China, a nation that has a long history of peace. Chinese wisdom is legendary which would be helpful to our fractured, warring world.

Another location which could be considered is Tasmania. It has no designs to seize world control as far as I know!

David G - The U.N. should be relocated in China, a nation that has a long history of peace

Tianamin Square being a really good example. New Zealand would be a good location for the UN, there can't be anyone left there to oppose whatever ridiculous schemes. Tasmanians are only pretend greenies who are quite happy to let multinationals pollute previously pristine lakes in pursuance of the holy dollar & to decimate world heritage rainforest so the woodchippers can make a few bucks.

Yea, David G, anti-US rhetoric starts to fall apart once you have to name your preferable country.

Would you say wisdom of the leaders during the following Chinese historical periods:

Qing Dynasty = 25 million killed
Ming Dynasty = 30 million killed
Taiping Rebellion = 20-100 million killed
An Lushan Rebellion = 30 million killed
Dungan revolt = 10 million killed

Hey what about the peaceful Mongols up north, they only wiped out 17% of the world population.

I don't believe the US is a perfect country and I disagree with many of the things it does around the world to maintain its hegemony, however your childish belief that handing the power to the second biggest bully in the world would solve all the worlds problems is simply naive.