世界上如果没有联合国会怎么样？
想象一下，一个没有联合国 Thus, the world without the United Nations: a more chaotic, less predictable, and ultimately, more dangerous place.
Without the UN, the world would likely be a far more fragmented and unstable place. Think of it like a global community without a town hall, a shared forum, or even a basic set of rules and agreedupon procedures.
First and foremost, the dispute resolution mechanism that the UN provides, however imperfect, would be absent. The Security Council, with all its political complexities, is still the primary international body tasked with maintaining peace and security. Without it, conflicts that currently have at least a global stage for discussion and potential intervention could fester and escalate much more easily. Imagine a territorial dispute between two nations; without the UN’s mediation efforts, or the threat of international condemnation and potential sanctions, a localized conflict could quickly draw in regional powers and spiral into a much larger, more devastating war. There would be no readily available platform to call for ceasefires, deploy peacekeeping forces (even with their limitations), or impose sanctions to pressure aggressors. Each nation would be left to its own devices, relying on bilateral agreements or alliances, which are often driven by selfinterest and can be easily fractured.
This absence of a unified forum for dialogue would also significantly impact humanitarian aid and disaster relief. The UN, through agencies like UNICEF, WHO, and the World Food Programme, plays a crucial role in coordinating and delivering assistance to populations in crisis. Think of a massive earthquake or a widespread famine. Without the UN’s infrastructure, established networks, and convening power, coordinating international relief efforts would be a logistical nightmare. Nations might still offer aid, but it would likely be piecemeal, uncoordinated, and potentially politicized. The speed and effectiveness of getting lifesaving supplies to those in need would be severely hampered, leading to greater suffering and loss of life.
On the economic and social development front, the absence of UN agencies would also be felt keenly. Organizations like the UNDP focus on poverty reduction, education, and sustainable development. Without these concerted, globally coordinated efforts, progress on these fronts would likely be slower and less equitable. Developing nations, in particular, would lose a vital source of technical assistance, funding, and expertise. Global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and the fight against disease, which require international cooperation and shared strategies, would be far harder to tackle effectively. Imagine trying to coordinate a global response to a new virus without the WHO providing guidance, sharing data, and facilitating vaccine development and distribution. It would be a freeforall, with each nation fending for itself, potentially leading to greater spread and more severe consequences.
Furthermore, the establishment and enforcement of international law and norms would be significantly weakened. The UN is the bedrock for many international treaties and conventions, from human rights declarations to environmental agreements. While these are not always perfectly enforced, they provide a framework and a yardstick against which the actions of states can be measured. Without the UN, there would be no central body to codify these norms, monitor their observance, or provide a platform for addressing violations. This could lead to a more lawless international environment where powerful nations could act with even greater impunity.
Finally, consider the symbolic and diplomatic significance of the UN. It represents an ideal, a commitment to collective security and cooperation, even if that ideal is often tested. It’s a place where nearly every nation in the world has a seat at the table, providing a unique opportunity for diplomacy and understanding. Without it, the world would lose this symbol of global aspiration and the practical benefits of having a shared space for nations to interact, even when they disagree. It would be a world where the voice of smaller nations could be even more easily drowned out, and where the opportunities for building bridges and finding common ground would be significantly diminished.
In essence, while the UN is far from perfect and often faces criticism for its inefficiencies and political gridlock, its absence would leave a gaping void. The world would be more prone to conflict, less equipped to handle humanitarian crises, slower to achieve development goals, and more likely to see a disregard for international law. The very fabric of global cooperation, however frayed at times, would be severely weakened, leaving us with a more unpredictable and potentially more dangerous future.
Without the UN, the world would likely be a far more fragmented and unstable place. Think of it like a global community without a town hall, a shared forum, or even a basic set of rules and agreedupon procedures.
First and foremost, the dispute resolution mechanism that the UN provides, however imperfect, would be absent. The Security Council, with all its political complexities, is still the primary international body tasked with maintaining peace and security. Without it, conflicts that currently have at least a global stage for discussion and potential intervention could fester and escalate much more easily. Imagine a territorial dispute between two nations; without the UN’s mediation efforts, or the threat of international condemnation and potential sanctions, a localized conflict could quickly draw in regional powers and spiral into a much larger, more devastating war. There would be no readily available platform to call for ceasefires, deploy peacekeeping forces (even with their limitations), or impose sanctions to pressure aggressors. Each nation would be left to its own devices, relying on bilateral agreements or alliances, which are often driven by selfinterest and can be easily fractured.
This absence of a unified forum for dialogue would also significantly impact humanitarian aid and disaster relief. The UN, through agencies like UNICEF, WHO, and the World Food Programme, plays a crucial role in coordinating and delivering assistance to populations in crisis. Think of a massive earthquake or a widespread famine. Without the UN’s infrastructure, established networks, and convening power, coordinating international relief efforts would be a logistical nightmare. Nations might still offer aid, but it would likely be piecemeal, uncoordinated, and potentially politicized. The speed and effectiveness of getting lifesaving supplies to those in need would be severely hampered, leading to greater suffering and loss of life.
On the economic and social development front, the absence of UN agencies would also be felt keenly. Organizations like the UNDP focus on poverty reduction, education, and sustainable development. Without these concerted, globally coordinated efforts, progress on these fronts would likely be slower and less equitable. Developing nations, in particular, would lose a vital source of technical assistance, funding, and expertise. Global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and the fight against disease, which require international cooperation and shared strategies, would be far harder to tackle effectively. Imagine trying to coordinate a global response to a new virus without the WHO providing guidance, sharing data, and facilitating vaccine development and distribution. It would be a freeforall, with each nation fending for itself, potentially leading to greater spread and more severe consequences.
Furthermore, the establishment and enforcement of international law and norms would be significantly weakened. The UN is the bedrock for many international treaties and conventions, from human rights declarations to environmental agreements. While these are not always perfectly enforced, they provide a framework and a yardstick against which the actions of states can be measured. Without the UN, there would be no central body to codify these norms, monitor their observance, or provide a platform for addressing violations. This could lead to a more lawless international environment where powerful nations could act with even greater impunity.
Finally, consider the symbolic and diplomatic significance of the UN. It represents an ideal, a commitment to collective security and cooperation, even if that ideal is often tested. It’s a place where nearly every nation in the world has a seat at the table, providing a unique opportunity for diplomacy and understanding. Without it, the world would lose this symbol of global aspiration and the practical benefits of having a shared space for nations to interact, even when they disagree. It would be a world where the voice of smaller nations could be even more easily drowned out, and where the opportunities for building bridges and finding common ground would be significantly diminished.
In essence, while the UN is far from perfect and often faces criticism for its inefficiencies and political gridlock, its absence would leave a gaping void. The world would be more prone to conflict, less equipped to handle humanitarian crises, slower to achieve development goals, and more likely to see a disregard for international law. The very fabric of global cooperation, however frayed at times, would be severely weakened, leaving us with a more unpredictable and potentially more dangerous future.
网友意见
没有联合国会怎样，就得提到它的前身——国联是怎么出现的。
国联的出现与一战爆发直接相关。
一战的导火索是奥匈的王储被塞尔维亚民族主义者暗杀，奥匈要求塞尔维亚交出凶手，否则开战；俄罗斯帝国顾虑奥匈借机开战，吞并塞尔维亚，因此给予塞尔维亚独立保证，如果奥匈宣战，则俄罗斯将站在塞尔维亚这边一起开战，由于奥匈算是欧洲大国，因此俄罗斯也得按照对大国的准备来进行战争动员，才能确保胜利；俄罗斯一动员，德国就紧张了，如果德国不做相应动员，一旦俄罗斯完成战争准备杀过来，德国就完蛋了，于是德国也得进行动员；德国一动员，法国也开始紧张，理由也一样，一旦德国完成动员杀过来，法国就不用再动员了，所以法国也开始动员；然后德国一看法国也开始动员了，就更紧张了，法国要是和俄罗斯一联手一起杀过来，我动员再多也打不过两边啊~```于是猜疑链就随着几个主要国家的动员程度迅速上升，直到开战。
国联就是为了预防这种情况。
你国动员了，你就来国联说说清楚，你究竟想干啥，要求合理不，要是我们不同意，你还动手，那就是不懂规矩，大家一起搞你。但是呢，国联顶不顶用，关键取决于几个主要国家有没有决心搞你，没有，那就是慕尼黑协定，大家集体决定把小国卖掉来换取局势的缓和。
联合国在一定程度上是国联的加强版，首先是给大家一个说说清楚的地方，缓冲下局势，实在不行，还有安理会和5大常任来给你撑门面，强行压制矛盾（维和部队）。
但是，如果5大常任自己就不爽其他人呢？
从联合国73年的历史来看，面对这种情况，联合国表示无能为力，尤其是在朝鲜吃了次亏之后，联合国就已经暴露了它其实并不能决定人类的安全，最多只是个缓和局势的地方，尤其是5常任之间的局势。仅此而已。像南海仲裁期间，中美那么紧张，联合国在干嘛？撇清那个仲裁庭与联合国的关系，它还能干嘛？对吧？
所以，没有联合国的话，至少对其他小国来说区别不大，就算是对于5常任来说，说实话区别也不大，毕竟捏着核武器的手，比任何嘴皮子都管用。如果核武器都不能遏制对方的战争意图（1962年古巴危机），联合国也起不到任何作用。
你说是不是？
类似的话题
-
想象一下，一个没有联合国 Thus, the world without the United Nations: a more chaotic, less predictable, and ultimately, more dangerous place.Without the UN, the wo............. -
关于苏联未解体后的世界，这是一个引人入胜的设想，它会深刻地重塑我们今天所熟悉的一切。让我们深入剖析，看看这个平行时空会是什么样子。首先，地缘政治格局将截然不同。 没有了苏联的解体，世界仍然是两极对抗的格局，但并非是冷战时期那种简单粗暴的对垒。苏联作为一个拥有巨大人口、资源和军事力量的实体，其影响力仍.............
-
关于“老牌资本主义国家转变为社会主义国家的先例”，以及“真正的社会主义国家应该是什么样”，这是一个既复杂又充满争议的话题。要深入探讨，我们需要剥离掉那些被意识形态标签化和简单化的理解，回归历史事实和理论逻辑。关于“老牌资本主义国家转变为社会主义国家的先例”坦率地说，历史上并没有出现过一个成熟的、稳定.............
-
如果世界上没有美国，其现状将是极其复杂且难以精确描绘的，因为美国的影响力渗透到全球政治、经济、文化、科技、军事等方方面面。以下尝试从多个维度进行详细的阐述，勾勒出可能存在的“无美”世界景象：一、 地缘政治格局的剧变 权力真空与多极化加速： 美国作为二战后以来全球秩序的主要塑造者和维护者，其缺席将.............
-
想象一下，如果有一天，猪、羊、鸡、鸭、牛、鱼这些我们熟悉的餐桌常客，在这个世界上彻底消失了。人类突然失去了赖以生存的畜牧和渔业资源，我们的饮食结构将面临颠覆性的改变。在这种前所未有的困境下，我们不得不重新审视和发掘那些被我们忽视但又具备巨大潜力的“替代者”。在这样一个假设的世界里，如果非要选择一种动.............
-
如果世界上没有蟑螂，那将是一种难以置信的、难以想象的、甚至可以说是超现实的平静。对于很多人来说，这可能是一种前所未有的解脱，但深入探究，我们也会发现，失去这种无处不在的生物，可能会带来一系列连锁反应和意想不到的感受。摆脱心理阴影的狂喜与平静： 直接的恐惧消失： 首先，那些对蟑螂有着深刻恐惧症的人.............
-
想象一下，某个阳光明媚的早晨，你走到窗边，享受着清晨的宁静，却没有了那恼人的嗡嗡声，没有了被叮咬的瘙痒。是的，蚊子，这个我们生活中不怎么受欢迎的成员，如果突然从地球上消失，这听起来是不是有点诱人？但从生物学的角度来看，这绝不是一件小事，它可能会在全球范围内引发一系列连锁反应，改写我们熟悉的生物链。首.............
-
这真是一个有趣且发人深省的问题。如果世界上没有核武器，现在的联合国安理会五常——中国、法国、俄罗斯、英国和美国——的地位真的会一如既往吗？我认为，情况可能会发生一些微妙但显著的变化，它们是否还能“当五常”，取决于我们如何定义“五常”的权力来源以及国际格局的演变。首先，我们要理解“五常”地位的由来。当.............
-
如果大熊猫从地球上消失，那损失绝不仅仅是少了一种可爱的动物。这会是一连串连锁反应，深刻影响着我们赖以生存的大自然，以及我们人类自身。对大自然而言，丢失的不止是一个物种：首先，最直接的损失就是生物多样性的锐减。大熊猫是四川的标志性物种，它所栖息的竹林生态系统是一个复杂而精密的生命网络。大熊猫作为这个生.............
-
如果世界上没有三角形，那真是难以想象的景象。我们熟知的世界，从自然到人造，无不充斥着三角形的影子。没有它，很多东西将无法存在，或者形态完全不同。首先，想想我们周围的建筑。如果取消了三角形，那些斜坡屋顶、桁架结构、桥梁的三角支撑都会消失。屋顶可能只会是平的，或者变成拱形，但这又会带来防水和承重上的巨大.............
-
.......
-
.......
-
关于“英法没有核武器，只有中美苏（俄）是核国家，我的民族自豪感会不会增加”这个问题，我得说，这确实是一个很有意思的设想，但具体到我个人，民族自豪感的增加与否，以及增加到什么程度，这背后其实涉及到很多层面的思考，远不是一个简单的“是”或“否”能够概括的。首先，我们得明确一下“民族自豪感”到底是个什么东.............
-
如果成吉思汗从未出现在历史的长河中，那么人类文明的进程，尤其是在十三世纪之后的走向，将会是截然不同的一幅画卷。这不仅仅是失去一位伟大的军事家和政治家，而是失去了那股席卷欧亚大陆的、颠覆旧秩序的强大力量。首先，我们得回到成吉思汗横空出世前的蒙古高原。那个时期，部落林立，战火连绵，草原上的人们生活在无休.............
-
这是一个引人入胜的假设，如果女性能够独立生育，世界将发生翻天覆地的变化。我们可以从多个层面来探讨这个可能性，想象一下一个没有男性的世界会是怎样的景象。生物与繁衍的革命：首先，最直接的影响便是繁衍方式的根本性改变。在我们的现实世界中，生育需要男性提供精子，而女性则提供卵子和孕育场所。如果女性可以自行生.............
-
这种说法，乍一听，好像挺有道理，好像把伟人的光环一下子就给打碎了，显得很“清醒”。但仔细琢磨一下，就能发现它站不住脚，甚至是有点滑坡谬论的意思。咱们不妨先拆解一下这句话的逻辑：“世界上没有爱因斯坦，也会有XX斯坦。相对论的出现是必然的，因此爱因斯坦并不伟大。”第一部分：“世界上没有爱因斯坦，也会有X.............
-
《这世界上还有没有月薪低于三万的程序员》这篇文章，就像一颗投入平静湖面的石子，激起了不少涟漪。它提出的问题直指当前IT行业一个颇为敏感又普遍的现象，引发的讨论也相当广泛和深入。首先，从文章的标题就能看出其抛出的一个“极端”表述，目的显然是为了吸引眼球，快速抓住读者尤其是程序员群体的注意力。这种表达方.............
-
看到《世界上没有普世价值》这篇文章，我的第一反应是它触及了一个非常古老且极具争议的话题，那就是“价值的普遍性”问题。这不仅仅是哲学上的探讨，更是关乎人类社会如何理解自身、如何互动，乃至如何构建秩序的根本性问题。文章提出的观点非常有意思，值得深入剖析一番。文章的核心论点及其解读如果文章的核心论点是“世.............
-
“新西兰是世界上最好的国家，没有之一”——这句断言，初听之下，颇有几分振奋人心，仿佛为无数向往美好生活的人们描绘了一幅理想国的画卷。然而，在真正深入审视这个说法时，我们会发现它更像是一种带着个人情感滤镜的强烈肯定，而非一个经过严谨考量的、放之四海而皆准的客观评价。要评价这句话，我们不妨从多个维度来拆.............
-
这真是一个让人不寒而栗，又带着一丝荒谬的设想。如果有一天醒来，发现整个世界只剩下我们一家人，五个人不到。首先，我得承认，那种孤寂感肯定会像潮水一样将我们淹没。但既然是这样了，除了面对，别无选择。活下去，这是最根本的需求。怎么活？我想我们会分工合作，充分发挥每个人的优势。第一阶段：紧急应对与资源搜集最.............
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 tinynews.org All Rights Reserved. 百科问答小站 版权所有