Active Users:1150 Time:23/11/2024 05:15:21 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 1536 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 965 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 982 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1017 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 860 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1017 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 585 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1188 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 997 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 948 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 912 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1058 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 474 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 995 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 983 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 896 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 476 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 866 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 505 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 960 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 920 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 875 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 439 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 912 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1011 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 418 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 856 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1142 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 1018 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1229 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 852 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 886 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 476 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1005 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 925 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 878 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 860 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 970 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 828 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 959 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 841 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 985 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1001 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 879 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 889 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 851 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 944 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 965 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1016 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 826 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 939 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 828 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 695 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 990 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 865 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 991 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 755 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1041 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 854 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 978 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1162 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 850 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1163 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 816 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 679 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1041 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 852 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 857 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 845 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 870 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 845 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 777 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 429 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 778 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1224 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 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 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1090 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 994 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 786 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 458 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 462 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1033 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 475 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 932 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1008 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 734 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1087 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 727 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 481 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 974 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 851 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 959 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 840 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 960 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 938 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 926 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes