What would be the implications of a a world, exactly like ours but the United Nations is an armed organization. They would have a peaceful aim, and value diplomatic solutions over anything else. They would also do humanitarian work after natural catastrophes. The only difference is that when a country goes against the UN, they risk going at war against the coalition of all UN countries.
For example say that a third world dictatorial country runs fake elections, deny the assistance of international watchers, and obviously cheated on the results. This new armed UN would give said country a warning, asking then tho do new genuine elections with international watchers. If they refuse, after a reasonable amount of time, the UN gives a last warning, asking them to comply or go to war.
For this world all the conventions forbidding weapons of mass destruction, or biological weapons. Also after a country is defeated in war, the UN takes responsibility from its politics, and deploys its humanitarian help until they country can function again.
For the UN to make the decision of declaring a war, they would need at least a 75% approval form all the nations inside the UN that can take the vote.
What would be the implications of such system?
- Would it be sustainable, or would mutually assured destruction get us all?
- How different would history be? Assume this change was implemented after WWII, under the philosophy that a second Hitler wont have chance to do so much damage if the nations are already allied and ready to answer such situations.
- Would it be abusable? How tight would be the UN's security to avoid going to war against a country for personal reasons of one or more representatives.