1945年4月25日，代表世界80％的50个国家的代表在旧金山歌剧院聚集。在战争的蹂躏和国际联盟的失败，并遵循Dumbarton Oaks的建议，他们来创造一个可以促进世界和平，建立一个更美好的世界的IO。新西兰在这次会议上发挥积极作用，帮助撰写一份所有国家都能接受的章程。由总理，彼得·弗雷泽先生和卡尔贝伦德森爵士代表，新西兰代表“唯一的目标是看到建立一个真正有效的世界组织，这将是一个普通进步的背景朝着所有人民，所有国家的安全，倾向和幸福“。因此，新西兰设法限制全体会议成员在新组织中的作用，同时扩大大会的权力。
即使在联合国成立时，拟议的双重成员资格也反对核心自由主义价值观，如民主，问责，灵活性和公平性。值得特别指出的是，新西兰强烈反对全体会议成为常任理事国，否决权。新西兰认为否决权“与几乎每个成员的愿望都不一致，除了[政治家]和那些通过政策或利益使它成为一个支持[GP]的点”。弗雷泽补充说，一个国家“违反[一个]理事会的决定[相对于一个国家在法律上有权行使反抗”有一个巨大的区别。反对否决权导致了漫长，激烈，有时是个人的辩论。 [1]新西兰强调的自由主义梦想是，所有国家都能够平等地共同工作。然而，全科医生明确表示，他们不会接受任何东西，影响没有否决权，没有组织。新西兰坚持其原则，在投票否决否决权的最后条款时弃权，评论说，这是“明智和适当的做法”，不能否决否决权，从而可能破坏“宪章”，而是放弃投票，使平原到“世界的原因”这样做。因此，可以说，一个自由的IO可以形成的梦想从一开始就有缺陷
澳洲澳大利亚国立大学论文代写:世界和平
On April 25th, 1945, delegates of 50 nations, representing 80 percent of the world’s population assembled at the San Francisco Opera House. In amidst the ravages of war and the failure of the League of Nations, and following the Dumbarton Oaks proposal, they came to create an IO that could promote world peace, and build a better world. New Zealand played in active role at this conference, helping write a charter that would be acceptable to all countries. Represented by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Peter Fraser, and Sir Carl Berendsen, the New Zealand delegates “sole aim [was to] see the setting up of a world organisation that would really work and that will be the background for an ordinary progress towards security, propensity, and happiness for all people, of all nations”. As a result, New Zealand, sought to limit the role of the GPs in the new organisation, along widening the powers of the General Assembly (UNGA).
Even at the establishment of the UN, the proposed two-tiered membership went against core liberal vales, like democracy, accountability, flexibility, and fairness. It is worth highlighting in particular, New Zealand’s strong opposition to the GPs becoming permanent members, with veto powers. New Zealand saw the veto as “repugnant to the wishes of practically every member except the [GPs] and those who by policy or interest made it a point of always supporting the [GPs]”. Frazer added that there was a great difference between a nation “defying [a] Council… decision [compared to a] a nation being legally empowered to exercise defiance”. The opposition to the veto powers led to a long, heated, and sometimes personal debate. [1] The liberal dream emphasised by New Zealand was that all nations would be able work together equally. Nevertheless, the GPs made it clear that they would not accept anything less, affect no veto, no organisation. New Zealand stuck by her principles, by abstaining when the final clauses of the veto power were voted on, commenting that it was “wise and proper course…not to vote against the veto and thereby possibly wreck the Charter, but to abstain from voting, making plain to…the world the reasons” for doing so. As a result, it can be said that the dream that a liberal IO could be formed was flawed from the beginning.