International law, according to the rich and powerful

Therefore, perhaps we should stress this aspect of insecurity around the world, rather than let the major powers foist on us a “war on terror”.

Regarding the reform of the United Nations, there has been unease about the veto powers of the Permanent Five in the Security Council since the inception of the UN in 1945. It was the USSR (under Stalin’s rule) that insisted on the veto in order to safeguard itself against, what it perceived as the possibility of a majority of states ganging up against it in the Security Council. It was either the veto, or no agreement about the Charter. The USA and the other major powers acquiesced to the idea of the veto, and saw it as advantageous (to them). The other countries taking part in the negotiations at San Francisco were less certain of the merits of the veto.

Brian Urquhart, (who was Under Secretary General of the UN from 1974 to 1986), and Erskine Childers (who was a UN civil servant for 22 years, and Senior Advisor to the UN Director General for Development) wrote extensively and with deep knowledge about the need for a more effective United Nations, hence, a more effective international law.

Though these data are well known among academics and leading statesmen, they have not yet percolated to the public domain to the extent that they may become the catalyst for radical change in the way international law is implemented.

As a first step, people should insist that their representative to the United Nations is answerable to their elected legislature, with regular reports available to every citizen. Until more people become aware of how international law is managed by the super-powers, and realise what they can do to alter the situation, then the UN is unlikely to be reformed to be in tune with the wishes of all the member states.