> Think of the UN as a mechnism for de facto powers to resolve conflicts and come to agreements peacefully; that's the UN's purpose, to prevent another major war.
The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. Spectacularly. The UN was created by reassembling the shattered bits of the LN ...
> The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed.
One reason it failed and the UN has succeeded is that one of the most powerful countries, the United States, didn't participate in the LoN.
And for 20 years you could say the League of Nations succeeded. Like the LN, the UN has become increasingly ineffective over time. In 1948 and onwards the various human rights were established and high profile cases were won. The position of the poor was advanced by the UN, prisoner treatment, political rights, hell everything ... even the plight of women and gay people in the muslim world advanced significantly as a result of UN action.
Now ... it's not just that the UN has stopped such advances, a good case can be made that it's actively working to turn them back.
The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. Spectacularly. The UN was created by reassembling the shattered bits of the LN ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations