1.

The organization has shortcomings in the management of international politi-

cal management. The governance scheme is obsolete.
2. It has been unable to modernize and respond to demands from non-tradi-
tional actors
3. The development of organisational projects is very costly
4. Financial sustainability depends on quotas, therefore the organization is de-
pendent on a few large donors.
5 Excessive bureaucracy generates slowness
6. With multilateralism in crisis as well as a setback in the democratic advance
of many states, the organisation the organization seems null on many occa-
sions
7. Bonus: Antonio Guterres is a lousy SG

There is a serious deficiency in the management of politics; it always has to do

with the people in charge of the institutions as well as the management of a
crisis will be reflected on how the group or institution is structure. It is pretty
wild how in the last 30 years our global stage has changed so much, but at the
same time it is hard to take serious an institution that has NOT been mod-
ernised in more than 70+ years, it is evident that it is difficult to find an organi-
sation that responds to certain needs as well as proper managing during a cri-
sis effectively.

Where is the UN when it comes to syria and the genocide going on in yemen?

This old organisation has not been able to modernise itself because it depends
of member states, and if its member does not decide to modernise the UN as
well as if its leadership does not have a clear proposal in modifying this system
it will subsequently cause the organisational scheme difficult to comply with
modern day necessities of individual people all the way from the countries
themselves and therefore international organisations..

In financial terms the capacity to execute projects has become difficult be-
cause the costs have elevated a lot and this causes the organisation or rather
executing projects through it makes it very expensive. It is easier to execute
projects with non governmental organisations, foundations, associations or re-
gional organisations,(ex: african union, OAS) The financial sustainability of the
organisation depends from the dues from its members, the scheme of the how
this org receives money is horizontal because it is hard to find different ways of
financing it self, and for many years it has struggled with finances because its
institutional apparatus is too large in terms of employees and that is where i
start thinking if it is necessary to have such a large institutional machine so if
so many projects can not be executed because the over head that the org
charges is very expensive. This creates a LARGE bureaucracy.

multilateralism: in the recent years we have seen in an increase in populists

around the globe which creates challenges for our international system, global
politics. In this proliferation of non traditional actors, that complicate the stage
makes it hard for such a SQUARED org to respond effectively and quickly to so
many challenges … In a multilateral world that is in crisis, where countries do
not care anymore about an international reaction and look more for a national
response it is complicated for an org like UN that has been in a crisis for a
while to exercise effectively its functions.. with all of this of COVID, we can ob-
serve how weak the UN is and it will continue to be so if there is no real
change..

if it does not reform it self, it will fall into a disuse or “moral authority” more
than political, and it will just be an actor that no one cares about since it will
lose leverage at an International level, and as citizen of the world I would not
want to see that happen,,

it is important to take into consideration that international organisations such

as the UN have been debilitated and in its place we have seen the rise of
groups where Ad Hoc negotiations are taking place and subsequently side lin-
ing a system where states nowadays are more engaged in international forums
(ex: the doha round, world economic forum) that are held every 6 months or
once a year. For the last decades these types of initiatives have a bigger pro-
tagonist character because of the scepticism that exists within states in par-
ticipating with international organisations; they much rather prefer a scheme
that is more simple for decision making or coming to an agreement without the
bureaucracy many times found in traditional international organisations (UN).
Because of all these diverse international forums that focus on eclectic topics
and making relevant agreements/ deals you can see how the UN is no longer
the exclusive global actor when it comes to dialogue or negotiations.

Throughout the years there have been propositions to reform this system, the
inclusion of the G-4 (Japan, South Africa, India, Germany). This follows the line
of increasing the number of participants within the security council and with
this have a bigger representation for a larger balance within the permanent and
non permanent members; i believe that there is a necessity to limit or elimi-
nate the veto of the permanent 5 because in most conflicts and crisis, the se-
curity council limits itself because of this and in terms of governance for the
council and the system this makes it very complex due to the fact that mem-
bers such as the USA, Rusia or China have very clear national interests.. I do
not think it is realistic to eliminate but maybe putting a limit on the veto we
can slowly progress and advance towards a significant reform that has not oc-
curred in more than 30 years.

the resolutions or decisions taken by the Assembly are not binding, except in
the case of budgetary issues of the same organization; Since they are not bind-
ing, they rest on the bona fides (good faith) of the States parties. Add to that in-
ternational custom and some other general principles of international law.
The system is based on respect for a number of principles that have emerged
over time: Non-intervention in internal affairs, the abstention of the use of force
against the territorial integrity of another State, the settlement of disputes by
peaceful mechanisms, the obligation to provide cooperation and the free self-
determination of peoples.

It has never been and is not yet well seen by most of the international commu-
nity that the decisions of a body such as the Assembly were binding. So in
short, the strength a resolution can have depends very much on the content of
the resolution and the desire of its members to adopt and respect it. An inter-
mediate point of view would be the adoption of the resolutions of the GA indi-
rectly, through judgments or rulings of international courts. Or from each state.

The secretary-general has two functions, one that is administrative and one fo-
cused on policy. In the Administrative Part is where the secretary directs and
is ultimately responsible for all decisions and institutions of the United Nations.
In my opinion the secretary general should be the leader of the orchestra, but
also the highest political operator of the entire United Nations system; he/she
is the person who gives direction and who leads all the discussions in forums,
but at the same time a visible person that reflects what is the official position
of the UN in regards to any international conflict.

It all depends on the person who holds this position; historically out of the 9
that have existed, there have been some who have devoted more to an internal
administrative part of the organization and may not have been as visible to the
public opinion, but internally they were doing important things; conversely,
there are other secretaries who have played more a political role..

It also depends on the international circumstance or moment that the secretary

is living, it is not the same to be in a time where there is economic bonanza and
relative international peace to be in the midst of international conflicts be-
tween world powers, economic and climatic crises that are destroying the en-
tire planet. Everything is relative to the situation in which the world is in. The
secretary General has to make a decision if she/he is going to be more active in
the political part and try to lead in international forums and bodies of discus-
sion ( or at least give direction) or instead choose the administrative position
where States decide the direction of the agreements.

It is important to remember that the secretary is appointed by the Security

council, although ratified by the General assembly, but in fact this position is
elected by the 5 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. The sec-
retary arrives with an agenda or series of proposals that if not endorsed by the
council, the secretary will not succeed in achieving anything, so somehow the
secretary already arrives with a committed/compromised agenda; and the
amount of reforms or freedom he or she has to be able to conduct the discus-
sion as they please is limited by these members. Therefore, the Secretary-Gen-
eral is limited and weakened and its capacity for action is really more on the
diplomatic side as well on a moral authority instead of holding real political
power.

Another thing to take into account (both administrative and political) is the
staff of the secretary; each secretary adds more staff to her/his cause. For ex-
ample, before the appointment of Ban Ki-moon, there was no sub-secretary
general position, this was created to try and ease the administrative burden of
the secretary to enable him to be more present in the political arena; this is
why Ban Ki-moon was more present as the face in the political world as head of
the United Nations in comparison to Antonio Guterres.

The true consolidation of a single world court system for all countries has not
occurred because International Law is subjected to what member States want
it to be or become. As a result of this, I believe it is not simple to create a
global court with a single entity that will ensure equality and justice for all; at
least to me it does not seem very realistic. To have a court which is legally
binding for all states, it would be necessary for all members to sign a conven-
tion as well as ratifying it, which is something that has not occurred and al-
ludes that maybe we are far away from an international court with a true bind-
ing powers over judgements or particular cases(specially when it comes to
world super powers). The moment that States such as China, Russia and USA
decide to ratify an agreement similar to this, we could potentially observe more
States joining; otherwise there will be a few amount of countries that would re-
spect the judgements of this sort of International Court of Justice or any other
similar institution.

As mentioned before, International Relations or International Law is based on

what states or the international community decides/agrees on what they want
to advance on; It is not possible if only some member states want something
and the other half do not, there has to be an international consensus for sub-
stantive reforms; but that is where the problem lays, there is no international
consensus in terms of creating a necessary reform. No State wants to give
their power to another State, entity, or third party that are not partial in the in-
ternational arena.

The organization has been left in the background in terms of managing the pan-
demic in many different ways, for example all the States concentrate on their
own population, but thanks to this unprecedented event, multilateralism as
well as international cooperation for many months remained in the background.
In terms of the vaccine, there are countries like Canada and the European
Union that have promised to donate the surplus of vaccines, but with the cur-
rent supply problem, that is a scenario that is far from happening. What I see is
a very diminished and insignificant role by the UN system.

The WHO in the case of the group of experts who went to Wuhan to investigate
the origin of the virus; it took months to convince China to praise these re-
searchers who were highly restricted during the investigation; At the same
time they have received many criticisms of the quality of the report, as they
saw what China wanted them to see. This is where one sees an international
organization really subordinated to the great powers.
Factores políticos (naturaleza de la migración, su ruta a otras regiones,
apertura o rechazo de países receptores, capacidad para recibir y ubicar
personas

Factor geopolítico y de seguridad en casos donde el país que está viendo un

éxodo de ciudadanos accede o no a que Naciones Unidas intervenga en su
territorio

Factor económico (interés de los países en aceptar o no migrantes y la presión

que puedan ejercer a nivel internacional para hacerse escuchar

It seems to me that there are several factors that need to be present for the
united nations to be directly involved in a conflict where the movement of peo-
ples is present. There are certain circumstances where an internal conflict
with a petition through the Security council, or by means of request from the
permanent members the issue can be addressed in an ordinary session.
through this means the conflict would be brought directly to the United Nations
or to one of the other organizations subsidiary to the UN system. At the end of
the day, we should remember that depending on the country and geographical
area, the UN has a presence in regional centers, so they can activate that
mechanism first before activating the centralized global mechanism in New
York and Geneva.

to answer the questions directly, factors that influence the work the UN in the
dealing of movement of people would be:

Political factors (nature of migration, its route to other regions, openness or re-
jection of recipient countries, Ability to receive and locate people)

Geopolitical and security factor in cases where the country that is seeing an
exodus of citizens agrees or does not to the United Nations intervening in its
territory

Economic factor (countries interest in accepting or not migrants and the pres-
sure they can exert at the international level to be heard)
Point 8 is entitled 'Decent work and economic growth'. In my view, this makes
it difficult to comply, at a minimum, with points 6 ('Clean water and sanitation'),
7 ('Affordable and clean energy'), 10 ('Reducing inequalities'), 13 (climate ac-
tion'), 14 ( life below water) and 15 ('Life on land'). because of the impossible
decoupling of economic growth from the consumption of energy and land re-
sources and the consequent environmental degradation.

It is surprising that (or maybe not), being the most advanced UN Agenda, no
one in the whole process was able to raise what the Club of Rome said almost
50 years ago in its famous publication "The limits to growth": it is impossible to
grow infinitely within a planet of finite biophysical boundaries. This suggests
that we are facing the umpteenth green-washing of a system of power and
economy that is incapable of doing things differently.

If our market based system based or neoliberalism policies continues to take

advantage of the invisible and free labor of women and cheap labor in manufac-
turing countries (points 5 and 10)? How are we to limit the increase in global
temperature to less than 2°C if we need to continue deforest thousands of km
of tress to feed a growing population in order to grow (point 13)? How are we
to preserve life in the oceans if one of the members has just allowed commer-
cial capture of whales again (point 14) . In short, it may be useful to work on
eco-social content in the 2030 Agenda but not forgetting to show the truth ex-
plicitly: much of the global dynamics affecting development problems are going
in the opposite direction.

The need to strengthen strategic alliances between NGOs, international organi-

zations, the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and UN agen-
cies is central to the changing for the better of a proper humanitarian re-
sponse.In fact, the successful implementation of the cluster approach will de-
pend on how all humanitarian actors work as equal partners in all aspects of
the humanitarian response: From assessment, analysis and planning to imple-
mentation, resource mobilization and evaluation, etc…

Alliances between humanitarian actors can take different forms, from close co-
ordination and joint programming to less close partnerships based on the need
to avoid duplication. Therefore, to be successful, cluster groups must operate
in a manner that respects the roles, responsibilities and mandates of different
humanitarian organizations. There must be recognition in the diversity of ap-
proaches and methodologies that exist among the different actors. It is essen-
tial that cluster groups find non-bureaucratic ways to involve all humanitarian
actors in a collaborative and comprehensive process focused on areas of com-
mon interest.

Some humanitarian actors may not be prepared or able to formally commit

themselves to working in structures that involve being under the authority of a
cluster approach. However, cluster group leaders must ensure that all humani-
tarian actors have the opportunity to participate fully and equitably in the defi-
nition of the cluster group's orientations, strategies, and activities. The leaders
of cluster groups are responsible for ensuring appropriate complementarity be-
tween the different humanitarian actors operating in their sectors or areas of
activity.