Active Users:438 Time:18/09/2025 03:17:54 AM
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
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1666 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1065 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1089 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1131 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1011 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1155 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 630 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1327 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1115 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1077 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1015 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1168 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 519 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1100 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1106 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1013 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 520 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 977 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 554 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1074 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1032 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 988 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 474 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1022 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 968 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1246 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1351 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 956 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 996 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 525 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1110 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1055 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 983 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 970 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1080 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 944 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1075 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 942 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1119 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1108 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1015 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1125 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 933 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1055 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 935 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 818 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1103 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 981 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1102 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 867 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1149 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 957 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1098 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1280 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 976 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 967 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 982 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 982 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 949 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1341 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 907 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 502 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 507 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1147 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1069 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1142 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 837 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1210 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 833 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1091 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 952 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1063 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 956 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1098 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1076 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1027 Views

Reply to Message