Reasoning with clear ideas and examples, what are at least two of the main justifications for the legitimacy, authority, and usefulness of the UN, and two of the main criticisms? Legitimacy means the acceptance and right of a given authority such as a law for governance, or a specified regime. Legitimacy refers to a whole set of governance system. On the other hand, authority refers to a specified position in a government. Government on its part refers to a sphere of influence. Any authority is perceived to be legitimate if it practices the mandate to use power justifiably. Legitimacy is, primarily, the most important ingredient for governing. If a government does not have legitimacy it is likely to encounter legislative deadlock (City, 2015. 2).

The mandates of the UN are basically normative. They aim to preserve peace, protect human rights and to promote development. The plans for operations are ideally strategies for implementation of the normative mandates of the organization. The credentials of the UN in representing the international community give the giant organization legitimacy. The UN has the mandate to decide for the international community on matters of procedure and impartiality. However, the situation also sets up the organization for claims of illegitimacy, informed by the technical nature of its secretariat as an international civil service entity. Such a stance causes problems. In a more recent occurrence, the interim leadership in Iraq requested the UN to assist in training the prosecutors and judges who would try Saddam Hussein and his associates. Kofi Annan, the then UN Secretary General responded that the UN would not be involved in helping national courts that have been given the mandate to try criminals. According to Annan, in a report he gave on transitional crisis, he reiterated that the UN would not participate or establish any tribunal for which there is intention to exact capital punishment. However, the question that arises from the developments is that of knowing whose political morality this could be? What is the number of people in the world living under regimes that still maintain capital punishment as a way to handle some forms for crime? The governments that still use capital punishment include Indonesia, China, Japan and the US. One wonders who sets the benchmarks for the relevant international standards. Does the giant organization enjoy state of grace over its members (Thakur, 2010, 1)?

Consequently, advocating for peace across the globe and human rights that are universal are the justifications that the UN has displayed for the right to the authority...

The organization has achieved the feat in a range of ways including the Security Council sanctioning a country as a response to a threat to prevailing security. It may also do so when there is a threat to public peace and aggression as highlighted in the UN Charter. Nevertheless, use of the armed forces is not among the options that the UN has on its cards. Other examples include the fact that they rely on their image to the public that they are a more humane option. Sanctions are treated as an option of the last resort (City, 2015. 2).
On the other hand, criticism has been flying round that 5% of the members of the UN’s Security Council who happen to be all nuclear powers have crafted a nuclear club that is exclusive and with unchecked powers. While the UN’s General...…opposition to such institutions, or is this support or opposition merely contingent upon specific institutional ideas and behaviors? Be clear and coherent in your responses.

I think everyone is at liberty to think and see things in their own unique way. World view is widely defined as the clear view that humans adopt of reality, including matters that have no proof. Apostle Paul warns Christians not to be yoked together with those who do not believe (2 Cor. 6:14). Here Paul seems to condemn any association with non-believers and advocates for a complete divorce from the world around. In the same breath, though, the same Christianity advocates that Christians should be agents of positive change wherever they live and work (TheronandLotter, 2009. 472). There is, therefore the need to strike a balance accommodating and exclusive Christian practices. To be strongly anchored in Christian principles ensures that christens realize their true calling for reform across the spectrum of life. Christians are called to be agents of positive change in the world and Service to God. Therefore, only an integral Christian World view can help Christians achieve their central role and mission of being agents of positive transformation (TheronandLotter, 2009. 472).

The Christian World view is an attractive option because it emphasizes a Christian approach in perceiving the world. The Christian world view explains what the bible teaches about human activity, and helps Christians to adapt to situations in the real world. The above argument, thus, informs my view that it is impossible to establish an amicable approach that can be used to oppose such institutions since they are influenced to a large extent by belief and faith, aspects that cannot be investigated or approved. The institutions…