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.

praxidice - What about the way the police in America broke up the protests recently.

Quote "New Zealand would be a good location for the UN" They caved in to US pressure on the mega uploads case full scale raid using helicopters and SWAT teams.

Pick a country that is not a puppet to the USA and is neutral, good luck trying to find one.

The main problem with this article is that it equates “internationalism” with “governance” – in other words, with a supranational body that can overrule sovereign states and exercise direct control over people’s lives. That scares me. The reason why 19th century internationalism was modified or abandoned in the 20th century owes less to the rise in national states than to the experience of two world wars that showed where the supranational will to power can lead, despite (in fact especially) when driven by supposedly idealistic intentions. The idea that a global government could in any was become the champion of the individual in the face of state power is frankly laughable.

For all its flaws and failings, I think a talking shop UN that works on co-operation, consensus and persuasion is a better model than one that exercises coercive powers in its own right.

I hope David is being ironic in his suggestion that China is an ideal location for the HQ of a revamped UN. But if Glenda gets her way, and the UN does get real political powers, the home of the Great leap Forward might be a pretty apt setting.

The major flaw of the UN is, and always has been, the Security Council.The 5 veto-wielding powers comprise four European nations plus one token Asian – hardly a representation of international interests.

On the crippling Cuban embargo, every Security Council vote has been vetoed by the US, despite almost total opposition from the other SC and non-SC members. Ditto the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The SC proved useless in preventing the Rwandan genocide, because the civil wars that formed the context for the genocide were useful in maintaining Western neo-colonial interests in central Africa. The Council was also used as a tool of intervention to break up the former Yugoslavia, because the presence of a reasonably successful, functioning socialist society was an embarrassment to the post-Soviet world order.

Unfortunately, the SC cannot be disbanded because it requires a full vote by its members. Catch 22. The only way to get rid of the SC is to get rid of the UN altogether.

As a uniting body to promote international cooperation and understanding, a UN-type organisation certainly has an important role to play. As for the prospect of an international world government taking the UN’s place, the disastrous political and economic effects of the European Union should be a warning to us all.

Philip S - Pick a country that is not a puppet to the USA and is neutral, good luck trying to find one.

I think Australia could well fit the bill if only we got rid of the totally broken two major political party duopoly & the sheeple awoke from their coma. The way things are headed, its a toss-up whether the economic system goes belly-up due to a humungous financial readjustment or the UN comes out of the shadows and claims the title of world government. Mind you its not inconceivable that all the political correctness & financial crap has been very carefully orchestrated to further the aims of the UN, in which case one wonders what part our bloodsucking parasites are playing.

A thoughtful piece, Glenda.
They (League of Nations and UN) have had their chance and they have failed. We have to move on, dismiss all the UN bureaucrats and turn the building into The Museum on the East River of Failed Noble Causes. (American also has a long history of failed religious and sectarian communes through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that could fill many exhibits) I think the inherent problem from the beginning was to treat, even beyond the security council, all countries as equal.
It’s ridiculous to consider that dictatorships and other disfunctioning banana republics should be allowed to share a forum with the functioning liberal democracies. All they used their turn at the dais for was to express their bigotry and hate or attempt to guilt trip us into giving them handouts.
Without the UN we can still maintain a diplomatic corps and get on with other nations, but just those civilised ones who deserve our friendship.

Killarney what you & most others don't appear to realize, the UN & later the EU were actually designed to stop Europeans going to war with each other, & killing each other, every few years. Hence the preponderance of Europeans in the security council. It has achieved that objective, although at great cost to the rest of the world.

Yes it is past it's use by date, you only have to look at the Bosnian debacle to know that. If the Bosnians were depending on the UN to do anything useful, they would still be waiting, if any were left alive.

In fact I can't think of a single useful thing the UN has done in the last 35 years. With it's present structure, it is likely to be much longer again before it does any thing useful again.

Far from being a US toy, the UN is the play thing of petty dictators in dozens of African fiefdoms, of absolutely no use to anyone.

It is high time Oz withdrew from the playpen, rather than spend millions buying a useless seat.

The money wasted at the UN could do much more good at home.

Hasbeen - The UN has employed tens of thousands of (highly paid) people that no organization in there right mind would employ.