International Law

goofyfish

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
Do we believe in an international rule of law? If so, do we believe that rules should be applied consistently? If so, do we believe that rules, if they are not applied consistently, will lead to a breakdown in the law and lead to the “rule of the jungle”?

Two examples –
  • Iraq's breaches of UN resolutions
  • Israel's latest clear breach of a UN Security Council resolution
Earlier, Israel dismissed the UN resolution as unbalanced.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians have said nine people were killed during Israeli incursions overnight into the Gaza Strip. The Israelis say they met resistance from Palestinian fighters. (Full text here)
Click to expand...
If we believe in the rule of law, should these two countries not be treated in a similar manner? Clearly, if the rule of law was actually being upheld, then Israel would have been held to account long ago - and they wouldn't be the only ones. But we don't actually have a situation where it's upheld. Imbalances in international power mean imbalances in international law.

Peace.

_____________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.
  • -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
 
Hang on, but isn't Iraq not a part of the UN, thus the UN laws don't really apply to them :confused:
 
The UN is a joke.

I think it's quite obvious that the security council is nothing more than a means of expanding power.

They have, on paper made peace in the world situation, but howabout in real life?


It's the right idea, but the wrong approach. The UN will probably, in the end, be the one to catalyze a WW.





So basically, I really don't care what they say. To me they're just a bunch of dressed up fools. They're policies mean didly, and you'll see that in a few years (~10) few people will still take them seriously.
 
Wow, I didn't even realise. Well, they did join when it started up :bugeye:

The UN human rights are great, you can't put the down
 
Maybe so, but their is still debate (and I'm not nessassarily talking about Abortion) over what is a human being and what isn't.
 
What about the US's breaches of international law? There are plenty of those. What about all the judgments of the World Court against it which the US chooses to ignore? Should the US be treated the same way as it wants to treat Iraq?
 
I hate to say it but the day an international court is established is the day that the world is united either violently or diplomatically under one leader or one government. Otherwise it is merely a joke.

If the US pissed the UN off, could the UN seriously tangle with us? Theoretically?

I'd say so. We'd be fighting a war on fifty fronts, there's no way we could cover so much land...wierd question I guess, but we may have to consider the situation with Iraq being the opening chapter of a new world war.
 
The UN kicks ass and will continue to kick ass as long as they get rid of the Blue Camoflague :bugeye:
 
The UN kicks ass and will continue to kick ass as long as they get rid of the Blue Camoflague
Click to expand...

They refused to prevent the genocide in Africa. What do you mean the UN kicks ass? I think they talk cheap when it comes to "human rights". Sure they say "This is what we stand for." but they don't bother enforcing it.
 
but they don't bother enforcing it
Click to expand...

They do in most cases, but other times, its the countries in the UN that disagree on what to do or they have bigger fish to fry :bugeye:
 
Sudan, the sme country that still has an active slave trade, is on the human rights commission.

Feh...
 
The slave trade is not government-indorsed.

If the US was on a drug abuse committee, perhaps they shouldn't be because so many people here abuse drugs? :p
 
The U.N cannot enforce international law without the support of the security council. If Israel were brought to the security council to enforce a resolution and discuss sanctions or worse for example it would only take a veto from the US or England to deter implementation. That is the same veto power China and Russia exercises when discussions on North Korea or the Sudan comes to the table. Being a UN member doesn't mean very much. The Khmer Rouge had a seat at the UN during its revolutionary massacre and Rwanda had its honorary seat in the security council when the same ruling RPF were out killing Tutu's and UN troops were in their country, something General Dallaire found particularly defeating. In order for the UN to enforce international law it would have to use brute force and they do not have the power to enter a soveriegn nation.

A better question is by who's standards should a sovereign nation succumb? Someone here wrote that the UN is a means to power expansion and this is quite true. It wields its power to insure the interests of its security council members which are militarily strong. To other nations considered rogue international law is simply a form of western hypocrisy. so yes it would be nice if all nations upheld international law but it isn't realistic unless you strip away sovereignty. Security council members decide what they will implement based on their interests not on the ideal or standards they themselves state. World peace is not the objective.
 
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
The U.N cannot enforce international law without the support of the security council. If Israel were brought to the security council to enforce a resolution and discuss sanctions or worse for example it would only take a veto from the US or England to deter implementation. That is the same veto power China and Russia exercises when discussions on North Korea or the Sudan comes to the table. Being a UN member doesn't mean very much. The Khmer Rouge had a seat at the UN during its revolutionary massacre and Rwanda had its honorary seat in the security council when the same ruling RPF were out killing Tutu's and UN troops were in their country, something General Dallaire found particularly defeating. In order for the UN to enforce international law it would have to use brute force and they do not have the power to enter a soveriegn nation.

A better question is by who's standards should a sovereign nation succumb? Someone here wrote that the UN is a means to power expansion and this is quite true. It wields its power to insure the interests of its security council members which are militarily strong. To other nations considered rogue international law is simply a form of western hypocrisy. so yes it would be nice if all nations upheld international law but it isn't realistic unless you strip away sovereignty. Security council members decide what they will implement based on their interests not on the ideal or standards they themselves state. World peace is not the objective.
Click to expand...

Just purely out of curiosity, could i see some examples of China using its veto power ? Its just not reported in the media, but again, neither was the US's use of it, until recently.

Yes, the UN is a farce, but as a forum for diplomatic discussion, it does its job well.
Now, if countries did believe in international law, one would be willing to submit to its regulations/resolutions. No politician will do that if he/she wants to remain in office. Howard didn't and Rudd certainly won't. (Australia).

In the world of international politics, Its who you know, not what you know.
Its not right, that Iran be submitted to sanctions, while Israel walks off scot free.
 
China has used its veto power in response to further sanctions in N. Korea and elsewhere. Here is a link:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/nkorea/2006/0706allies.htm

They are doing the same in Sudan and other countries. The link offers an example of how this works itself out. If you want more information I can post more information, especially if you are specific. Trust me this is going on all the time and its not just China, all the nations of the security council engage in this kind of 'blocking'.

You mentioned the UN being a good format for discussion and it is but the problem is that diplomatic discussion is its only means of power. A simple example would be this: You come to my house because I mistreat my spouse? You come and tell me its wrong and I tell you to fuck off because its not your business. I tell you to go home. Now if you don't have access to my conscience then you will have to force me to comply. How? Well you have to have access to my food, energy supply. You would have to have access to what is important to my survival because if I am really a despot then I can survive it because I have all resources available and under power...its only the population who cannot provide this for themselves which will comply but that doesn't necessarily translate into a 'positive' revolution. Now if I have food and energy for myself but need to compensate for what I don't have then I will have to acquiecse. But wait. If a nation isn't interested in the WHOLE international community what happens then? They then side with those in power who want or need what they have and WAIT IT OUT because these avenues then become a means to power...in the security council. Why? Because no matter who is 'big' there is always a rival. Even if severe sanctions impoverish a nation they do not necessarily impoverish the regime. If all else fails then you do like Somalia and wage war and see if the strong nation is really prepared for the heat, which they rarely are because of the commitment of cost in human life which their own population is unwilling to sacrifice. The REASONS for discussion and the IMPLEMENTS which come from discussion have absolutely nothing to do with the particular humanitarian discussion at hand. Why? Because of money and politics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for the lay-man, not the political/economic machine, its an advertisement to make themselves look viable. I cannot remember if I have the UN's paper on the human rights of children here or in the States but if I can find it I will post it because it shows just how 'idealistic' and 'futile' these announcements are when there is no way of insuring implementation of them throughout the globe. Its simply a pat on the back for those who create the statement and those who sign but it doesn't mean the infrastructure or mindset is there to carry it out from a financial, cultural, religious or practical point of view.

I cannot believe how long it took me to write this stupid post. I need a vacation from my vacation spot.
 
Last edited:
Like it or not, Its still the only place you can talk to an American, or an Armenian, or a turk, without getting shot at.
 
That's true. The UN in my opinion is a cruel joke. The only reason it hasn't failed like it's predicessor is because a world war hasn't broken out yet....
 
Challenger: Like it or not, Its still the only place you can talk to an American, or an Armenian, or a turk, without getting shot at.

Hell no. I don't know where you live but I meet people from all over all the time and we leave our guns at the door.

Here is a really solid research site one can join or read to understand what is going on in this changing climate.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/

Xevious: That's true. The UN in my opinion is a cruel joke. The only reason it hasn't failed like it's predicessor is because a world war hasn't broken out yet....

What do you mean? There is war all the time. The UN exists to make sure war doesn't happen in the West (or the nations of security council members) this way can manipulate war in countries of lesser importance. They also know that as long as there is no war in the West, people in the West are myopic enough to believe that there isnt war in the world and if there is they are not engaged in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top