When the UN dismembers a Country

[musicmonster]

Okay, so I just found out that UN gave the Philippines a warning that if they don't stop with their corruption, the UN will dismember them. What are the consequences and the possible scenarios that could happen if the UN pursue it?

 

[xTinx]

Did the UN really say that? I'm from the Philippines. Aside from failing to hear that news, I also know that you can't dismember a country for that reason alone. Come on, it's not just us. Every country out there must have experienced some degree of corruption. No country is absolutely corruption-free, just so you know. Another thing, the UN, formerly called League of Nations, is a body created under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." Each state is independent and doesn't have power over other states UNLESS such states commit "grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction."

 

[Redheart]

Okay, so I just found out that UN gave the Philippines a warning that if they don't stop with their corruption, the UN will dismember them. What are the consequences and the possible scenarios that could happen if the UN pursue it?

I think [speculating merely] that once the U.N spits you out, they will ask member nations not to co-operate with the country that's out of the U.N. It would mean economic sanctions on a global scale. That would force them to do what the U.N demands. But there's no way to enforce that though.

 

[globulon]

I find it hilarious that the UN would target the Philippines for charges of corruption. Like xTinx said, It's not just them. While the Philippines may be corrupt, if the UN were to dismember them for that they would have to lose a quarter of all the member states.

I do wonder what dismemberment from the UN entails though. Has this ever been done in its history?

 

[Muthoni]

Okay, so I just found out that UN gave the Philippines a warning that if they don't stop with their corruption, the UN will dismember them. What are the consequences and the possible scenarios that could happen if the UN pursue it?

This can be a dangerous thing if the UN stopped doing business with them. They will not be in a position to borrow funds from the UN for their projects. Her people will not get a chance to work with the UN reducing the amount of revenue that comes into the country. Other countries loyal to the UN may also stop associating with them. This is a sure way of opening the door of poverty for this nation.

 

[musicmonster]

Did the UN really say that? I'm from the Philippines. Aside from failing to hear that news, I also know that you can't dismember a country for that reason alone. Come on, it's not just us. Every country out there must have experienced some degree of corruption. No country is absolutely corruption-free, just so you know. Another thing, the UN, formerly called League of Nations, is a body created under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." Each state is independent and doesn't have power over other states UNLESS such states commit "grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction."

Yes this is real. Apparently, the UN had enough of the extreme corruption going on in the Philippines so they gave a warning and even obliges your president to report to them about it. Look it up. This is why I wonder, what exactly would happen when this comes to pass.

 

[KimberlyD]

I find it hilarious that the UN would target the Philippines for charges of corruption. Like xTinx said, It's not just them. While the Philippines may be corrupt, if the UN were to dismember them for that they would have to lose a quarter of all the member states.

I do wonder what dismemberment from the UN entails though. Has this ever been done in its history?

If I remember correctly, wasn't Germany at one time dismembered voluntarily?

You know, I have nothing against the UN. I understand what they were originally intended for, but what are they really doing now? Sometimes it seems as if the UN is plying to become a central world government. Then other times they seem to just be there to be there and not do anything at all. Maybe I am starting to become a conspiracy theorist or something and imaging it.

 

[globulon]

I do agree that the UN seems mostly impotent in world affairs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the UN was meant to be a world police. It primarily provides avenues of communication between major world players and works to keep a sort of balance rather than have widespread conflicts. Not to mention that the UN probably is a host to many beneficial international organizations that range from charity, world health, and financial regulations.

 

[stryker]

I'm really not familiar enough with this Philippine situation to say anything other than that the UN calling anything or anyone corrupt has got to be one of the best examples of the pot calling the kettle black you'll ever see. There are, no doubt, many who would oppose this thought; yet many who would agree that dismembering the UN would be the thing.

 

[zenfive]

Haven't heard of this at all, would be good if you could actually provide a news source in the future. From what I know, the UN charter has no provision for withdrawal of a member nation, and has never done so in the past. And as several people have already said, there are so many other countries in the world which have a lot more corruption that the Philippines. Therefore, I highly doubt the UN is going to think about expelling a member state such as Philippines simply on the basis of them being corrupt.

 

[KimberlyD]

Has any country ever been expelled or withdrawn from the United Nations?

You are correct zenfive. The UN was created a s a means for nations to come together to work out their problems in a peaceful manner rather then just go to war. A parlay if you will. However, the UN grew bigger then it founders anticipated.... anyone know who created the UN? I'll give you a hint... they were representatives of the 26 Allied nations, one of which was the one who named the UN was President of the US at the time. Lets see how many get it right.

 

[Scorpion]

I doubt the credibility of this news. Why would the UN dismember Israel for violating human rights, killing of innocents, building illegal settlement on an occupied territory. That in itself a violation to the UN charters.

 

[KimberlyD]

I doubt the credibility of this news. Why would the UN dismember Israel for violating human rights, killing of innocents, building illegal settlement on an occupied territory. That in itself a violation to the UN charters.

Good question... unfortunately the only thing that comes to mind is the reason why we have yet to go over the and obliterate problems in those areas with a single nuke or something.... POLITICS! As much as we all hate the word and the system... there are reasons that it exist. I assume that the UN has its hands tied for some strange reason preventing them from taking action against them. The only thing that can really happen is to place sanctions and boycotts on these areas that would impact their governments enough to make them try to fix the issues or call in the big guns (US, UK, and USSR) to fix it for them.

 

[xTinx]

Yes this is real. Apparently, the UN had enough of the extreme corruption going on in the Philippines so they gave a warning and even obliges your president to report to them about it. Look it up. This is why I wonder, what exactly would happen when this comes to pass.

That is not real. Or perhaps you misunderstood? You didn't even provide evidence for your claim and the way you phrased it reeks of fallacy. Look, you can't dismember a country because there is no such thing as an international government. Each state is independent. Our membership to the UN is voluntary and we can opt out anytime we want to. Besides, the only way states will ever need the UN is because of humanitarian reasons and other bandwagon treaties. Other than that, it's pretty much senseless. Our country has bilateral treaties with other countries anyway. We're also a part of the ASEAN and have participated in the OECD. The UN doesn't provide deep-seated economic perks. We get that from our ASEAN membership and various economic treaties. I don't really get your point. It off and baseless.

 

[xTinx]

I doubt the credibility of this news. Why would the UN dismember Israel for violating human rights, killing of innocents, building illegal settlement on an occupied territory. That in itself a violation to the UN charters.

Some guys do not understand the role of the UN, I guess. The UN was created to prevent wars. It's mainly for peace-keeping. So any issue that falls under peace-keeping is the UN's turf. The UN does not in any way dismember countries. If so, what's the role of the International Court of Justice anyway? The UN can only reprimand - not oust a country from membership.