Talk:United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal


Contents

[edit] No mention of General Assembly dictator's club?

It seems odd that there's no mention of one of the driving forces behind this -- disgust that the UN General Assembly had become a "dictator's club" or self-protective defensive alliance of despotisms and dictatorships during the 1970's and 1980's (with some lingering effects even today). AnonMoos 09:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this being a driving force? 24.54.208.177 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Dude, there was no need for you to condescendingly quote my own words back at me on my User talk page -- that does nothing whatsoever to impress me with your discussion style. And frankly, the only reason that the idea of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly receives any significant political support in the United States from people who are not already committed peace advocates or one-worlders is disgust with the current state and/or recent past state of the General Assembly (the "dictator's club" aspect being one strong part of this). Just look at papers at URLs such as http://www.centerforunreform.org/reformtopics/basicorgans/areaderonsecondassembly.htm , http://www.centerforunreform.org/publications/booksbasicorgan.htm , http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/intl_instit/UN_ref/Schwartzberg_Weighted_Voting.pdf etc. for politely nuanced and scholarly qualified statements of things that many other people would state in much more categorical and emphatic language. AnonMoos 06:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it really accurate to refer to it as a dictators' club, when a large (and growing) number of members are democratic? Captain Zyrain 12:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's relatively recent -- as recently as a dozen years ago, the balance was somewhat different than it was today, and even in Schwartzenberg's 2004 report, only 46.4% of UN members are "fully free". In any case, I didn't include the phrase "dictators' club" on the actual article page. AnonMoos 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the main criticism (and the one I saw in the Schwartzberg Weighted Voting article) is that the East and South tended to oppose the U.S. on issues such as Zionism, economic development, and international trade. Who's to say that representatives in a UN Parliamentary Assembly wouldn't also oppose the U.S. on these issues? Captain Zyrain 12:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If they did, then it would because the people of those countries democratically voted in representatives who expressed such sentiments, not merely because of highly-dubious sleazy backroom deals between highly-dubious governments, which have given us such results as Sudan being elected to the UN Human Rights Commission at exactly the same moment that it was beginning its genocide campaign in Darfur(!!), Libya actually being elected to the chairmanship of the UN so-called "Human Rights" commission (at the name of which even buzzards gag) etc. etc. Furthermore, it was only because of unrelenting United States opposition that Sudan was not elevated to a seat on the Security Council(!!!): http://southsudanfriends.org/News/SecurityCouncil1.html , http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/09/30/un.councilcampaign.ap/ etc. etc. ad nauseam. The real criticism of the United Nations General Assembly is that it goes through yearly repetitive stylized ritualistic votes rather than confronting the real issues of the day, and that the structure of the body creates permanent majorities and minorities which make it easy for many countries to escape all scrutiny, while resulting in a perpetual ganging up against other countries that has very little to do with the actual facts.
Are you using the word "Zionism" because you don't recognize the existence of Israel? AnonMoos 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The U.S. makes those criticisms (that the UN is ineffective, that it passes resolutions that are opposed to American interests, that tyrannical regimes are appointed to human rights positions, etc.) yet we don't see people like John Bolton, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. lining up in support of a UNPA (instead, the typically favor either withdrawal from the United Nations or starving it of funds until it reforms). Rather, the groups supporting the UNPA are liberal NGOs such as Global Policy Forum, World Federalist Movement, etc. So, I question whether that is a "driving force" behind the UNPA, as you say it is. Captain Zyrain 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Although I don't think it would be NPOV to call it a dictator's club nor would the impetus for such a body need to be limited to this aspect, I do think that it may be helpful to refer to there being some motivation in this regard. Also, while I don't believe Captain Zyrain would necessarily degree, in my opinion, "liberal" (as well as "conservative") is a most tired label which skips over the nuances many individuals or groups hold (not to mention contrary to the truth-seeking requirements of justice). I don't know why groups that support a more proportional representation (e.g., presumably populous, non-veto-wielding members such as India or even the U.S., were the UNPA closer to being an inevitability) would need to be also necessarily opposed to enhancing the democratic say of currently oppressed peoples; on the contrary, the desire for justice could be an impetus for both. At least one organization, the Baha'i International Community, has made proposals addressing both points ([1]). Speaking of which, I wonder whether specific proposals to progressively reform within the U.N. system (such as made in the latter document--e.g., limiting the domain of the veto, restricting membership in the General Assembly to those with a minimum of rights, etc.) ought to be added to the article here as well. Brettz9 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments transferred from wrong location

I removed this statement[2] because no source was provided. Captain Zyrain 02:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the above. AnonMoos 13:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schwartzberg-centered?

To me this whole article seems to be a little bit too centered on the ideas of this Joseph Schwartzberg which I think is inappropriate. 62.104.150.238 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are some other scholars who have analyzed this issue? Captain Zyrain 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
A number of scholars and groups have written on possible structures for a global parliament, the most widely known being Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss. Robert Sheppard, George Mondiot, and Daniele Archibugi are others. The Comité d'action pour un Parlement Mondial and the E-Parliament Initiative are also promoting the concept. Each of these efforts should be referenced in the article. Here are some relevant links to the research:
Tfleming 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDP as a factor in weighted voting

Is GDP an objective enough measure to use in weighted voting? GDP depends at least partly on estimates, doesn't it? Captain Zyrain 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of representation of various states

The apportionment chart currently compares Israel, North Korea, the United States, India, and China. Does anyone have any other suggestions for comparions? I compared Israel and North Korea to show how North Korea's population advantage is neutralized by its "Not free" status under the Provisional People's Assembly method and by its relatively weak GDP under the Schwartzberg Weighted Voting method. Captain Zyrain 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it so it now compares Brazil, Indonesia, United States, India, and China, the five most populous countries. Captain Zyrain 05:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Could it be amended to include a group of small countries - perhaps Africa, to show how their say would decline under this proposal. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Assembly

I know as Wikipedians we shouldn't post articles for our own ideas, but I've recently had one that I think is worth mention:If the UN legislative body was modeled after that of Europe, then there should be an upper legislative organ composed of delegates appointed by the government of each nation. This World Council would distribute members by nation on the next logical step of the Penrose Method:The cubic root of the millions place. This would similar to the European Council as the UNPA would be to the Europarl.--SuperWikiman 01 03 2006 4:00 (UTC)

And what about the General Assembly? It's quite like what you have been thinking of...

[edit] Direct election

I was thinking about adding a qualification that a UNPA need not, strictly speaking, be directly elected. I mean, it would be possible, for example, for peoples to specifically vote for delegates who would in turn chose the official international representatives (whether in the rubber-stamp mode of the current U.S. electoral college, or as a conscience-voting intermediate body. This would still be different from the current U.N. system in that people around the world would have a specific vote pertaining to international issues and the intermediate body would necessarily be an elected one (and not through the executive). Brettz9 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Delegates for internal affairs are different of these for external affairs. They can be elected the same day, in different votings. --Nopetro 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The CDUN proposal is explicitly that UNPA members would not be directly elected - at least at first - just as the europarl wasn't. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2.1.1 Implementations -

One World Now is a non-profit organization that is promoting the amendment of the United Nations Charter via article 109 and has established forums to discuss methods of empowering the United Nations. While One World Now's web pressence is fairly new, Mr. Musslewhite, the president of One World Now, been campaigning, under the banner of One World Now, for an empowered UN since 1992.

Mr. Musslewhite would like for One World Now to be listed as an organization promoting amendment of the UN Charter if this would be appropriate. OneWorldNow 06:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An effort to establish a parliament through Article 109 is uninformed and doomed to failure. Sorry to be blunt in response to such idealism, but that really is all it amounts to. Any amendment to the UN Charter (under Article 108) requires the assent of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council and approval by two-thirds of all member states' parliaments. This degree of difficulty has resulted in only five amendments ever being adopted, all of which simply expanded the membership of the Security Council and Economic and Social Council in response to increased UN membership.
Invoking Article 109 is all the more unwise as it would open up discussions on EVERY aspect of the Charter. Given present global politics, such a discussion would only result in gridlock and failure. And, no, civil society is not sufficiently organized to force goverments to act against their immediate political interests. Such organizations as Mr. Musselwhite's (less an NGO than an NGI - non-governmental individual) are even more poorly connected or organized.Tfleming 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
While it is commendable that you are familiar with the Article 109 process, as well as, at least superficially, with Mr Musslewhite, your opinion as to the wisdom of invoking an Article 109 review conference is of no relevance to the merit of including a reference to One World Now in the article, only the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and the consensus opinion as to the applicability to the article are relevant. As I am mentioning the website with the intention to promote the One World Now, I can understand if it is decided that it falls under "links that should be avoided." however, due to the website's goal of increasing awareness of global issues, methods to address those issues (both via UN ammendment and not, though primarily through article 109), in addition to raising awareness of One World Now itself, I hope that an exception will be made.OneWorldNow 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to promote public awareness of Article 109, you should do so in an article on that topic. It is too specific for this article, which broadly describes the concept of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. However, if you choose to do this, you must comply with Wikipedia's NPOV rules, and not promote one OWN's side of the argument. No doubt others will criticize the utility of approaching UN reform through Article 109, but it would be to your credibility if you did so from the beginning. Tfleming 16:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the UNPA proposal (or at least CDUN's UNPA proposal) is explicitly a proposal for the creation of a UN without any Charter changes required. It's this fact that makes it so attractive as it means it's easier to implement. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This page needs its references to be cleaned up. I've done the first step, which is putting them in the format of <ref>[http://...]</ref>, but now it needs to be put in the format of <ref>[http://... The European Parliament Report #32767], May 1, 2007.</ref>. Perhaps I will do that when I have a multi-monitor system that will allow me to efficiently do this (having all these windows open is cumbersome, and the project would take hours with one monitor). Captain Zyrain 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a script somewhere that can do this automatically? Captain Zyrain 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary-General

What about the UN Secretary-General direct presidential voting (this is, the citizens could vote to the UN Secretary-General candidates in democratic countries. --Nopetro 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really want to do that, though? That would basically be setting up a presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system. And presidential systems tend to be inefficient because you typically have the executive clashing against the legislative branch. Some would say that's a good thing because it's an additional check and balance, but in my experience in student government, it's just annoying because the legislature can pass something by a large margin and then the executive can stonewall it (e.g. using the pocket veto, or by simply failing to implement it). Or the executive can do unconstitutional stuff, and it's hard for the legislature to stop them – especially when there are a large number of supreme court justices who were chosen by that president.
Notice that county governments in the U.S. typically don't opt for the presidential system either – they have a board of supervisors that is an executive/legislative body rolled into one. And the board appoints the county executive. Some jurisdictions have a separately elected sheriff, but the tendency is to limit his power to running the county jail and other duties specifically assigned to him by the state constitution, and to have most law enforcement done by a county police department that reports, directly or indirectly, to the board.
Anyway, point being, the presidential system is lame. We should instead have the secretary-general chosen by a democratized General Assembly and/or Parliamentary Assembly. Captain Zyrain 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really relevant to this article anyway! AndrewRT(Talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNA-USA

Does UNA-USA continue to oppose a UNPA? I was wondering whether they might have changed their policy, in the wake of WFUNA announcing its support of a UNPA. Captain Zyrain 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a statement from WFUNA or a news article about their support? Tfleming 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wfuna.org/news/plenary_assembly/pa38_resolutions.cfm#UN_Parliamentary . It is currently a footnote in the article. Captain Zyrain 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorials

Here are some pertinent editorials:

[edit] Lead

Is it necessary to include citations in the lead when those issues are addressed and sourced in subsequent sections? Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be lax on that so long as it is covered elsewhere, but there is no harm in copying up the citation just to cover your bases.- J Logan t: 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which link is better?

Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro & Con

I'm not sure if there are any policies/guidelines on this, but I dont personally like articles which are structured around pro/com arguments. Could they be split out instead into the lines - e.g. Democracy, Legitimacy, Efficiency etc. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that instead of being organized like:
  • Pros
    • Democracy-related argument
    • Legitimacy-related argument
    • Efficiency-related argument
  • Cons
    • Democracy-related counter-argument
    • Legitimacy-related counter-argument
    • Efficiency-related counter-argument
It should be organized like:
  • Democracy
    • Argument
    • Counter-argument
  • Legitimacy
    • Argument
    • Counter-argument
  • Efficiency
    • Argument
    • Counter-argument

I think that does make more sense and would make for an easier read. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure, cont'd

I am trying to figure out the best way to hierarchically structure this article. I got rid of the "pros and cons" organization but now it's not clear under what headings to put all these different topics. Maybe they can all be top-level headings, as is the case with US Senate. Sarsaparilla (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

I'm having trouble finding acceptably-licensed pics to use in this article. Can anyone find one of the National People's Congress? Sarsaparilla (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

In reference to the comment that wikisource is not a reliable source, the last time I nominated an article for FAC, I ran into objections for not using Wikisource because the external source moved its page, causing all the links to the treaty text to become broken. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances/Archive1. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Hi Sarsaparilla! I am excited to see that someone is working on some UN articles. Unfortunately I'm about to head out for the evening and won't be able to review until later this weekend. Thanks for the heads up and I'm looking forward to reading this! --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, look at this sentence in the lead, which goes on for six lines:
  • This would represent a fundamental change in the nature of the UN, whose structure currently reflects the world order that existed at its founding in 1945, in which the relatively undeveloped state of communication technology in most countries limited citizens' participation in diplomacy; a large portion of the world population lived in colonies whose foreign policy was controlled by imperial nations; and power was held by the victorious countries of World War II, whose primary concerns included a wish "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security".
Have you seen User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Better, but there are still textual redundancies and unnecessary verbosity, and vagueness and lack of attribution which lead to POV. I left just a few sample edits indicating the work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area ruled

Does this proposed body not take into account the area ruled by a country? If it is only taking the population into account, then densely populated and small country X could steal sparsely populated and large country Y's resources.

ie. Mexico could vote to strip Canada of it's resources.

And if economic production is all that is taken into account, then the US could vote to strip Russia of its resources.

  • population
  • area controlled
  • economic production
  • inherent natural resources
  • heritage resources

need to be taken into account.

132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

Any objections to me creating two new sections on "supporters" and "opponents" - a simple list of people/organisations that support or oppose the proposal and their arguments for or against? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am against. There are just too much out there to be mentioned. 89.60.253.71 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I second the opposition, for the same reasons, and because it places the focus on the supporters/opponents rather than the proposal. Tfleming (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)