The UN has pretty well failed in everything. why is this? What international relations theory is correct?

Are these good assumptions?

1. States act rationally (pick a goal, assess costs/benefits of reaching said goals, and choose the best option)
2. Governments/leaders determine state action based on what will get them re-elected or win them support. (thus, they are not only effected by the public, but business interests, elite interests, etc)

anyone know if theres an IR theory that is based on those assumptions?

>>1

> The UN has pretty well failed in everything. why is this?

Please state what 'everything' is, and what the UN has done to fail 'pretty well' at it.

sad

The United Nations here is to fail at EVERYTHING.

But the whole concept behind it, i.e. believing in that every nation have its pros no matter how their internal politics is bad and believing in a world without borders is utterly awesome and mindblowing. But it is understood that the decision against strongly expressed by internal opposition was taken to have permanent legislation holding up.

In order to get around the problem that the United Nations already had of getting its member to pay their subscriptions, on which its peace-keeping efforts depend, it has been proposed that there should be a new tax on arms sales, which would help to pay for current and future UN activities.

I think the general term for this is "realism", it has been the dominant strain of IR theory for a pretty long time

>>8 is right. The major other position opposed to realism is liberalism. This is the position that asserts states will work together for mutual benefit, both in regional unions (the EU, ASEAN, the Arab League, etc.) and in international organizations. If we put it in a simplistic way, liberalism is more idealistic and realism is more cynical.