The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
and granted, the UN is not the US, but the US falls under the UN, does it not? I've never really understood exactly how that relationship works out, but we're really not supposed to violate the UN declarations of human rights, are we?
This is a very common misconception. The US (and for that matter any other nation) is not 'under' the UN in any way. Sovereign states are just that. Sovereign.
The entire UN is basically a big committee where member governments get together and agree on 'stuff'. How things should be. How things are. etc. Thing is, not everyone agrees on every element of every treaty. Many states are not signatories to certain treaties (while they may be to others) basically saying 'That rule is bunk and we aren't following it'.
Of course, lots of other states push agreements into place or sign them and then have no intention whatsoever of actually following them. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the treaty on the rights and status of women, for instance.
The UN, by its own charter, has no enforcement arm of any kind, nor is it ever allowed one. The only thing that can happen is a bunch of states get together and do whatever needs doing on their own possibly with the UN's blessing.
This is why 'International Law' is a joke. People think of it like criminal law, a set of rules put out by the government with an enforcement body to make sure they're followed. Really it' has no similarity to this at all.
It's far closer to international treaty law which for all intents and purposes says: "If you're strong enough to break this, the weaker party is humped unless they can get a big enough gang of friends together to do something about you."
It's more schoolyard bully than it is Cop arresting Murderer.
And is the only organ that can authorize the legal use of military force, unless of course it is military force in self defense and also apply punishment for violations, sanctions etc. Of course, the problem is that the US would never be punished for violating the UDHR in this way not only because of the veto, but also from a practical standpoint that a majority of the world can't be called upon to sanction itself.
Now I totally agree with you on many of your points, that often the UN just ends up as a a tool for the powerful nations to screw over the weak ones, calling upon them to act under its mandates but ignoring them ourselves. However, it is an important point that we remember that just because the UN is ineffective at enforcing its own legislation that we, the member states, are ultimately responsible for upholding international law. In the end, a law is a law in the fact that it is acted upon, not in the precsence or lack thereof of a capable penal body.
Though this is a total, near relevent tangent, my point is that ultimately the United States, not the Security Council is responsible for upholding whatever international law within itself. As a democracy, this mantle of authority falls upon we the people.
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1533 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 962 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1186 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 995 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 946 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 912 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1057 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 981 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 894 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 864 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 504 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 958 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 919 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 910 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1010 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 418 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 854 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1141 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 1018 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 885 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 923 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 876 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 858 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 969 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 999 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 887 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 849 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 944 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 963 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 990 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 863 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 989 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 754 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 852 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 977 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1160 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 848 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1162 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 814 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 678 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1040 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 852 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 844 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 776 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 429 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 777 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1223 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 826 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1088 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 785 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 475 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 930 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1006 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 726 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 480 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 973 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 849 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 957 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 838 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 960 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 936 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 924 Views