Pulling out of the UN undermines all work done to date. Should not "submit to rule" because the young forming international governmental system is simply not at that stage yet. It's still a "by agreement" cooperative stage.
Which is why different nations having different relative power is still happening. As in contract negotiations, the big guys have more weight to throw around. If the UN ever becomes a body which can effect mandatory rules, then this issue will need to be addressed. You history buffs will recognize this as the central problem in forming the US federal system: how do the states divide power? In the federal system there was the Great COmpromise resulting in our bicameral system: A Senate where all states are equal, and a House where the state's power depends on its (population) size.
There was a prior attempt at a US federal system that the states pulled out of - it was formed under the "Articles of Confederation." I think in the US though, unification was an inevitability even though it took two tries. I think the same is true internationally. It's just a matter of time.
We're on our second try at international governance (remember the League of Nations?). Let's hope it works - because it usually takes a World War for nations to start trying the international government thing again.
BTW - big big huge point. If the UN were nixed right now, there would still be an international governing body - the WTO. WTO addresses TRADE ONLY. UN addresses every issue brought before it. Having only the WTO would be like trying to run your country with only the Federal Trade Commission. The WTO has explicitly said that tangential concerns (such as environment and fair labor) are NOT in its mandate - only the protection of trade is in its mandate.
This means that without the UN, and its some 4000 various treaties, there would be no international body to address anything other than fair trade.
It is my humble opinion that this is horrible regarding many issues. Take environment for example (just because that's my field of expertise). On most issues, the WTO rules would disallow discrimination against widgets based on environmental concerns. This means that a nation could not charge a tariff on a product based on its environmental nastiness.
We'll take CFC's and DDT as examples. Internation regulation of both are dependent on UN treaties: Montreal Protocol and Migratory Bird Treaty (birds are most affected by DDT though it harms humans as well). Take away the UN regulations, and the EU cannot ban or place tarrifs on the imports of CFC's and DDT to EU countries.
Or, it can, but it will pay a whopping fine to the WTO. This means that the EU countries that make comparable, more eco-friendly products (like non-CFC aerosol cans which are the only ones you can buy in the EU or USA right now) will have a market disadvantage.
In other words, the WTO acting *alone* creates a "race to the bottom" because the companies in the USA/EU making products under USA/EU laws will be undersold by the products made using dirtier methods or containing dirtier chemicals.
MagiK, I know you have an Axe the size of Sazerac's to grind regarding the UN. But, if you are in any way advocating a US pull-out of the UN, you are (a) advocating irresponsibility and (b) pipe-dreaming because it ain't ever gonna happen.
