This is a factual question, not an opinion. Surely, there must be a factual answer as to how the UN operates, or else maybe they really should disban.
After visiting the UN webiste, I see that Iraq has been a member of the UN since 1945. Ok, so why wasn’t Iraq expelled from the UN after the very instant it annexed Kuwait leading to the first Gulf War? …not to mention its association with attacking Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf in the late 1980’s causing the US to grant protection to Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag? - Jinx
One might just as well ask why the US was not expelled for the numerous, arguably unjustifiable invasions it staged in the 20th century. Playing fair has never been a prerequisite for UN membership.
If this is true, then the UN accomplishes very little to nothing. Perhaps I discount small disagreements (of which I am ignorant) which may have otherwise been played out on the battlefield. So, maybe the UN serves to minimize wars…
But outspending Russia’s military budget helped, too!
FWIW, the predessessor of the UN, the League of Nations has the reputation in history of complete uselessness because it failed to prevent World War 2. But they did expel one member: the USSR, in 1939.
Maybe, if you’re of the mind that the UN’s sole purpose is to prevent wars (which, according to the Charter, it’s not). Personally, I have found the population statistics gathered by its component agencies to be of great use.
In international law, a sovereign nation is only bound by international conventions which it has ratified. The authority of the Security Council to impose restrictions on Iraq and to require disarmament flows from the fact that Iraq is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and has agreed to be bound by the principles of international law set out in the Charter.
If Iraq were kicked out of the U.N., it would no longer be a signatory to the Charter, and could argue that the Security Council has no authority over it. Therefore Iraq would not be required to disarm, as a matter of international law.
