Active Users:1059 Time:13/11/2024 06:20:35 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
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.

An Enforcement Body made up of a handful of old diplomats isn't going to stop much. You need a military for that.

My point was that the UN is not allowed its own military. The Security Council may allow the militaries of other nations to act (should they so voluntarily desire) as an enforcement body, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about entirely different things here. When I used the term Enforcement Body - I meant an actual body of troops which would be used for enforcement (which the UN is not allowed through its charter) not the advisory council which might order such a body to act, if it existed.


Albeit not a great one.

While it is true that the UN doesn't have a standing military, a major barrier for its capability in the maintainence of international peace and security, that which it was initially chartered to do. However, it can call upon the world to donate troops, as with the creation of UNAMID as it is now over 20,000. Whilst of course it is not the same and fundamentally voluntary, there are usually enough countries willing to donate enough troops. Not counting Rwanda.

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.

Actually the UN is a tool for everyone to screw over everyone else. Little nations often use it as a tool to screw over big nations and frequently get away with THAT too - unless the Security Council vetoes. It is, in fact, a fairly useless mess. I'm not a fan of the UN. While their hearts are sometimes in the right place they are a paper tiger and really act as nothing but a political sanction for those who actually do the deeds that need doing.


Whilst not myself a full fan of the UN, I assert my opinion once again that we can't simply lay the blame only upon the charter and the lack of an effective enforcement agent. We must take some of the blame ourselves for our failure to act accordingly, perhaps this is an example of not really being able to critize the world when we don't hold ourselves to the same standard.

And I will disagree with you that a law is a law. A law that is not enforced (or not enforceable, which is most of the UN's 'laws';) is not a law at all. It's just hot air and wishful thinking. People may call it a 'law' but laws, by definition, are supposed to be enforced. If it is not or cannot be, I don't consider it to be a law other than perhaps as a technicality. And I think technicalities are BS.


I wasn't pointing out the technicality that nominally the UN resolutions are law. Which the aren't anyway. A law that is not enforcable or enforced can still be a law as long as it is a law in the hearts, minds and actions of the individuals. This principle of opinio juris is the fundamental basis of Customary International Law, which many of the most binding nautical agreements originated from.

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.

The difficulty is that people assume that the US is signatory to every piece of legislation the UN puts out (it very much isn't) or that it should be if it isn't (it very much should not be due to that 'little guy trying to screw over the big guy' thing I mentioned earlier). Many of those pieces of legislation hamstring big governments or militaries and would equally hamstring the little ones too - except that even while signatories they just ignore them figuring, usually correctly, that no one will do anything about it except send the occasional nastygram which will promptly get used in the Generalissimo's john as TP. Oh there might be 'sanctions' but those tin pot governments love those. They can make all the westerners out to be nasty bad guys and solidify their own power even while not being inconvenienced in any meaningful way themselves. Meanwhile their people pay the price and blame all the people they are told to blame.


Do people assume that? I think most people are aware that the US is not invovled in most of the military treaties and many of the conventions of the UN, examples being the recent ban on cluster bombs and the less recent failure to ratify the Rome Statute. Part of the maintainence of International Law is in the fact that we simply accept it as much in mere principle.

Can you actually explain how the UN is used by small countries to screw over the large ones? I'm not really sure if I understand the plausibility/ actual historical occurance of this.
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."

-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1530 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 957 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 976 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1010 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 853 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1013 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 583 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1179 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 992 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 939 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 905 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1050 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 472 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 989 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. everynametaken - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 976 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 889 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 473 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 858 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 502 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 952 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 913 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 869 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 437 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 905 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1004 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM 415 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 851 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1135 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... Legolas - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM 1013 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1224 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 846 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 878 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 474 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 997 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 917 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 870 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 852 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 963 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 822 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 953 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 834 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 980 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 994 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 874 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 881 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 843 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 938 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 957 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1008 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 819 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 932 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 818 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 689 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 983 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 855 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 983 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 749 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1034 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 846 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 971 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1156 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 843 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1159 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 810 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM* Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM 673 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1036 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 842 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 847 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 839 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 864 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 838 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 771 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM 425 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 772 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1217 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 819 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1082 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 985 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 780 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 454 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 459 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1025 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 471 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 923 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1001 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 727 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1079 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 721 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM 478 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 968 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 844 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 950 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 832 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 953 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 928 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 917 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes