They meet once a year for two weeks, in that time each member of the committee has a chance to address something. I personally think that once a year for two weeks is not enough to be 100% efficient. I believe that twice a year for two weeks at a time would be a lot more efficient. In my opinion the positives from extra time outweighs the factor of the increasing cost of doing so.
Also I believe there should be another committee that decides whither topics are important or not. This could greatly impact the decisions of things due to the different vote criteria.
I believe that the current structure of the United Nations general assembly is very efficient and needs minimal changes in order to make it more efficient. I believe that the frequency of the times they meet would be the absolute best change that could be made. This change would increase efficiency drastically.
I agree two weeks is definitely not enough time to discuss all the worlds issues. Also, what happens if a huge conflict erupts? Does the UN stay silent about it until their meeting or do they try to solve it quickly without following their schedule? Also, do you really think it is a good idea that each member gets one vote? Don't you think influential countries such as the U.S. should have a vote that counts more over smaller, less significant countries? I understand that would probably create more conflicts but it only makes sense that whichever country the conflict affects more should have a greater say in how they work the details out.
ReplyDelete