This suggestion makes excellent sense, and is almost doable in some form ... but ironically, the presently applicable veto power would probably keep it from becoming reality in the near term.
It should still be put to vote every few years or so. --- "Charles M. Brown" wrote: > It may be possible that there is a useable gap between desperate political holdouts (undesirable) and last bastions of sense (desirable) at the UN so a high and ponderously changing ratification requirement, say 90%, would allow more responsiveness than a veto but require enough agreement to be a reflection of civilization. > Aloha, > Charlie
