I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
SilverWarder Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 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.
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.
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.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.
May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.
Old Egyptian Blessing
Old Egyptian Blessing
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
- 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
1697 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
- 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
1077 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
- 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
1346 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
- 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
1144 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
- 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
1102 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
1032 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
1183 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
- 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
1126 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
- 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
1021 Views
*Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
988 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
- 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
563 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
1087 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
1043 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
1035 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
- 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
1135 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
- 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
469 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
- 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
981 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
- 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
1262 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
1179 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
1007 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
- 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
1069 Views
Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
995 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
982 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
1092 Views
Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
959 Views
Re: Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
1087 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
- 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
1122 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
1030 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
988 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
1076 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
1105 Views
It should be noted again...
- 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
1114 Views
and how is it not a right?
- 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
996 Views
My definition of rights...
- 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
1114 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
- 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
876 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
968 Views
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
968 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
- 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
1116 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
- 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
1297 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
987 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
1312 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
- 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
925 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
746 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
1164 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
- 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
990 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
963 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
897 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
481 Views
To clarify for you
- 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
965 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
- 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
1361 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
- 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
958 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
1252 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
- 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
917 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
516 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
- 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
1099 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
- 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
1155 Views
Note it all you want...
- 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
847 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
549 Views
The best one yet.
- 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
1106 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
960 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
1080 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
978 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
1112 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
1086 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
1038 Views
