Doesn't it strike anyone as a wee bit hypocritical that non-democratic governments are allowed to send representatives to vote in UN decisions?

Excuse my ignorance,but what does it mean the word United Nations?
It is not the United Democratic Nations is it???
And do you own this organisation that you think who should be allowed in it and who shouldnt.
How arrogant you must be western.

If the UN isn't democratic, why are it's decisions voted on?

I'm not 'western'. More 'southern'. But as a resident of earth I feel I'm allowed to question organisations acting on earthian soil.

because the UN was set up as a means of ensuring collective security. not for promoting democracy. and the UN is hardly democratic anyway. having permanent members on the security council and the power of veto for military superpowers is nothing but brutish dictatorship.

Imagine a university, corporation or a military unit that functioned as a democracy. Does anyone think this could work, with all the students, employees or enlisted personnel voting on what to do with their time? Can a freshman, janitor or trainee fresh out of boot camp be counted on to consistently make good overall decisions on behalf of the organization to exceed its intended objectives? How about something larger and more complex like a nation of many millions that people must count on for the well being and prosperity of their families and future descendents?

So what's the alternative? ;)

(Bare in mind that many universities do have democratic student leaderships - which don't run the university, but do have a say in things.

I don't think a military unit is a good example to follow for everyday life.

Corporations run on capitalism. Should the richest people rule a nation?)

Doesn't it strike anyone as a wee bit hypocritical that non-democratic governments are allowed to send representatives to vote in UN decisions?

International law doesn't care about the national political system of a country,
a country is an entity which has a known territory, permament population and government. And as such it is entitled to be a subject of the international legal system.

a country is an entity which has a known territory, permament population and government. And as such it is entitled to be a subject of the international legal system.
That I agree with. But - correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't the government choose the representatives it sends to the UN? If the government doesn't represent the population, how can its UN representative? So given the number of tinpot dictators out there who came to power via coups, or were set up as puppet governments by western powers, are their nations being fairly represented?

To me, that sounds like going to a high court only to have your lawyer chosen by the opposition (who also owns the jury). You want to be the subject of a legal system? Easy! A remotely fair legal system? Well, that might be too much to ask for... :p

UN is about a fair representation of the world powers, not of the world people. UN mainly is about keeping peace between the world powers, not about representing the people in a democratic gathering,
UN is not world parlament.
India has more inhabitants than the USA, but the USA far outweights the influence of India in the UN.

To me, that sounds like going to a high court only to have your lawyer chosen by the opposition (who also owns the jury).
The international court of justice usually has 15 judges from different countries of different world regions. Each involved country (party in a dispute) has a right to appoint one judge of their liking.
There is no jury, the decision is reached by voting of the judges.

Hmm, I see I was mistaken.

In that case I'd think the name 'United Rulers' would be more accurate than 'United Nations', although I suppose that depends on your definition of 'nation'.

i would say "inneffectual squabbling group of rich assholes" is a more appropriate term for the group.

The United Nations is not a world government, so the idea that the people of the world are not being fairly represented is silly. The United Nations is a forum for the governments of various nations to meet and decide on international law, and international law loosely governs the interactions between various national governments, not between the people of the world. You are thinking of the U.N. as an international parliament or congress of sorts, and it is not. It is a forum for dicussion and decision making, and the decisions the U.N. come to aren't even all that binding because there are only consequences for violating the decisions of the U.N. when the violations are either extreme, or the offending country is disliked internationally (and is not a major player in the U.N., either). Your assessment, in my opinion, lacks any kind of real insight. I'm sorry.

The UN and its' agencies has done more good than harm. It has strenghtened human rights, done a monumental humanitarian and healthcare work, done its' share of peacekeeping and helping local populations in environmental disasters.
It has slipped a few times along the way, but if you'd take away all that the UN has done, then we'd be living in a worse off world.

Check out http://www.un.org for more info.

Your assessment, in my opinion, lacks any kind of real insight. I'm sorry.
Already understood ;)

I find it unfortunate, though, that while the UN can work on interactions between governments, and criticise things like wars that cause discomfort between nations, they can't seem to do much about human rights within a nation.

While there are NGOs which attempt this (e.g. Human Rights Watch), are any of them actually effective?

if you consider writing a letter to the offender letting them know how upset you are with them...then yes, they are effective.

other than that, the UN has very little tangible authority.
look at the way the USA was able to just thumb our noses at them.
its sad, really.

they can't seem to do much about human rights within a nation.

That's not entirely correct. For example, consider the UN peacekeeping operations in countries of civil war.
And the UN has done lot to winden and clarify the rights of self determination.