Just an article I came across today and found interesting, stating some good points. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/features/article_1313152.php/Outside_View_G8_or_G4
No they are simply the 8 most strategically important economies in the capitalist economy people think that just because they meet in common they all must be the best or the biggest or the something - but it just so happens they have strategically important economies to the world industry
i don't really get the whole thing, how it was ever actually relevant. isn't this what the UN was for?
I think it's that the UN is more about peace keeping and such and G8 is to with other issues such as economy.
wouldn't the peace be kept more easily if people were on the same page financially? some things i just don't get. i can't wrap my head around certain stuff. it's why i didn't ace my ap civics test and lost interest soon thereafter. some shit just doesn't make sense. pounding my head on a brick wall is more fun than trying to figure out wha tthe fuck people are doing and why.
The UN is a pluralistic, but (aside from the Security Council) relatively toothless organisation that was conceived, in theory, to guarantee certain basic rights and mediate between disputes and which operates on very broad remits through a variety of different organisations and platforms. The G8 is a private members club, utterly unaccountable and highly influential in terms of trade and economic policy and has an entrenched neo-liberal bias resulting from US dominance and European capitulation....
I disagree The UN's main purpose, as articulated in the Charter, is to guarantee internatioonal peace and security. That has been its aim from foundation as it strives (and admitedly fails) to become a collective security organisation. I wouldn't call it toothless at all... And while there is the UN declaration of Human rights.. all it ever claimed it would do was promote not guarantee basic rights.. in my opinion (i agree abou the G8 bit though)
The Security Council certainly isn't toothless. The General Assemley, though, have very little more than suggestive power. Yes promote would have been a better word to use than guarantee. Its remit is much broader than peace and stability, though that of course was the most pressing post-war issue. It does do good work as an aid organisation for example. However when I say it is toothless, it is fair to say that the UN is not more than a sum of its parts. When it comes to a conflict of interests between a powerful member and the supranational structure, primacy remains in the hands of the nation state. It has not, to any significant degree, eroded the sovereignty of leading states....
debatable. Factions of the UN such as the ICC arguably are attempting to erode the sovereignty of even the powerful states. By prosecuting the individual, including heads of states, they are showing that those guilty of war crimes can not longer hide behind the formerly protective curtain of sovereignty. I'm not saying the UN has taken on a personality of its own.. It still is what states make of it.. I just think its power is often underestimated...and the high state tendency to resolve conflicts and so seek authorisation to use force through the security council i think shows how...while great powers may often bypass the UN..they do recognise the advantages through acting with its consent The General Assembly also in my opinion does more than suggest.. its resolutions play a major part in the formation of customary international law - as evidence of state practice..
