Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
International Court of Justice Case 1: China/Hindustan/Japan vs. UN
China, Hindustan and many other nations are protesting at the European and Western domination of the UN, in particular the Security Council. China and Hindustan demand at least one seat on the Security Councils Permanent Group with veto powers. These believe less powerful nations like Italy should not have been granted seats.
China shall be granted a permanent seat in the UN.
Italy: Just because we don't have as large a population as you it does not mean we are not more powerful. Italy will veto the enactment of this rule unless the threat is lifted. However, we will agree if Italy's seat in the SC is maintained.
United States: First point: China, Japan, Hindustan, if you leave the UN, it would be probably not be very beneficial for you. I mean, you can’t vote on resolutions, ICJ cases, etc. Also, Italy, you can’t veto ICJ court cases on yourself. If it was on some other nation (China), then you could veto, but since this is directly on you and the rest of the Security Council, you can’t veto. I know, I’m new to this thing too, talk to me all of you if you guys have suggestions. Also, please have a right format. I have to take several minutes fixing format, putting spaces, changing 23px to 30px, adding borders, bullet points, etc. Finally, ICJ cases are available to only nations with Judges in the ICJ. Japan has no judges, and neither does Italy. I will use Random.org, biased towards their intentions, for the non-players. Questions? And also, Viva la Vida is the best song in the world.
Yugoslavia: I see the point of both side. I suggest that we have one each from North and South America, two from Europe, and one or two from Asia since Africa is mainly colonies as well as Australia and Pacific Islanders.
Finland (SUMA - this includes Norway, BTW, but I can't control certain foreign affairs until it's a confed.): The SUMA disagrees to Italy being Perm member without a Scandinavian nation being a perm member. The Scandinavians do not understand why the Italians have the veto right. Italy is a small nation while Scandinavia is much larger and has much more industrial capability and more power and is also a nuclear and does not fully understand why Italy has a veto anyway.
- Italy: Tell me in which way is SUMA more powerful, larger, or more industrial than us. You have slightly over 10 million inhabitants, we have over 40. You have a small industry and large amounts of farming, we have a large industrial power. We also have nuclear bombs. The Scandinavians are NOT major powers, whilst the Italians are.
China: Our case will NOT result in Italy getting kicked off the Council. We are just unhappy that Italy is on the Council but China and Hindustan are not. We are not trying to boot Italy (excuse the pun) but merely using the Italians as an example of why we should be let in.
United States: No, it was directed at SUMA. To give you an idea, the population of Sweden and Finland combined is ~10,000,000. However, the population of Italy is a freaking 44.5 million. My sources: here, here, and here. Also, while Italy wasn't as industrialized as other European nations, it sure was heck more than Scandinavia
Finland/SUMA: @ USA It was in OTL but did you pay attention to the Reconstruction Plan that lasted roughly five years? This is ATL so yeah... Reconstruction plan was put in place to increase industrialization and modernize every part of Finnish life.
Soviet Union: Guess what, in OTL South America and Africa were not represented in the SC after WW2. Sometimes life just isn't fair. Get over it. We have to limit the amount of people in it, or we will never get stuff done since a lot of perm members will have veto power and no one will agree on anything.
Soviet union: None of those are major nations. Only major nations should be permanent members of the SC. End of discussion. any attempts to add representatives based on terms like "Hispanic world" will be vetoed by me, since the SC has to approve additions to the SC itself.
United States: @SUMA: Yes, but the Italians did also. Also, did you not get the earlier post? Italy outnumbers you 4.4 to one! And they have a nuclear arsenal too. They have industrialized as well. The Italians, with their (much) larger population, as well as a bigger economy, due to their many colonies. (Libya, Somalia, Djibouti, etc). How many colonies does SUMA have? None. And that is it. Stop trying to claim that the Scandinavians suddenly have a better economy and industrial might than Italy. End of story.
Finland (SUMA): actually, Norway has some colonies and overseas possessions and claimed land in Antarctica, so there you go, Norway is, BTW, part of SUMA. Norway had approx 3.5 million inhabitants so roughly 14 million that's maybe 4-1 not 4.4-1. We're not as weak as you think.
France: Look, guys, it's not like China or Hindustan, etc. don't have seats. You do. Everyone does. It's just that Italy gets a seat on the Permanent Security Council. Everyone gets a say, and it's not like your opinions are neglected or fall on deaf ears. We can't have every single nation that wants to get on the Security Council can get on the Security Council.
China: Um.. I think China and Hindustan win the case??? @ SUMA and Venezuela: China and Hindustan have a least 1.5 billion people or around 25%+ of the worlds population in 1950. If we don't get seats how will you????