Enforcement of International / United Nations Law

[Diggo11]

I must confess I know little regarding the subject and issue, so this is going to have to be a "throw it out there" style post. I'll hope for the best. Simply put:

Do you think the United Nations should more vigorously enforce international law?

When I bring this question forwards, I am noting three instances that come to mind from my perspective. They aren't the topic of the debate, just issues that crop up on the Aussie news every so often:

• China. Specifically, their lack of political freedoms and the totalitarian control of the government.
• Australia's disregard for the rights of asylum seekers.
• Japan's seasonal whaling.

Do you think the UN could, and/or should, do more to enforce its policies in these and other instances?

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Add in the EU & Americans blowing up other countries just because they can
Going after Ghadafi and planning to murder him with missiles isn't what UN authorized
But apparently they can jumble and mumble crap about how Ghadafi got a military-grade radio under his bed, so they were only trying to take out military equipment & not himself

Fair enough.
So why can't China blame that they're all creating political unrest and lock them up for good?
(Not that I agree with what they are doing)
I believe every country follows its own path. Implementing 'American Freedom' in certain countries can cause crap - because it doesn't help =.=
Guantanamo Bay, the supposedly 'necessary' torture chamber to extract information to ensure world peace. Needless to say - plenty of inmates in there are not really related, but got beaten up any way.

I don't see problem of totalitarian control of the government as long as its for good - I admit it is hardly 'good' at the moment, but as our plan stated it was 30 years of Economic Development - then 30 years of political advancements. PRC was set up only slightly more than 6 decades ago, went through a ton of crap including the 'great' Cultural Revolution - yet we will strive for the better future that we see.
To be frank, I dislike certain countries:
In the 18th~20th Century period, quite a number of self-branded Christian countries colonized the world's 'backward' countries, extracted resources, killed the locals at will, on the pretext of 'Evangelizing the locals' Examples I cite can be China, Vietnam, India etc
Not very happy either.
Then we have the Americans proclaiming peace - just as the Soviets proclaimed their ineffective implementation of Socialism actually worked - we see wars from the 50s onward until now. Probably the only thing special about President Carter was the lack of war.

The above not strictly related, but I was taught that not all countries look what they seem.
= . =

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The United Nations

According to its Charter, the purpose of the United Nations is to “maintain international peace and security,” “develop friendly relations among nations,” “achieve international cooperation” and “be a center for harmonizing” nations.

There is even a question whether unless theres a benefit to get involved for certain countries it doesn't even do that job properly.

Is it really a peace-keeping body? Look at some of these failures:

The UN failed to condemn slavery in Sudan

It failed to be effective in Rwanda and ran away letting Genocide happen

Where were they when Mugabe caused a famine for 8m in Zimbabwe by expunging all white farmers ? They now talk to Mugabe about how to address this problem after ignoring it in the first place.

The UN is a joke in Sierra Leone they are ridiculed and known for having no power.

They claim diplomacy and inspections for nuclear concerns yet at the same time refuse to discuss demanding to be let into N Korea

The UN ignores human rights abuses all over the world all the time & half the counties in it are guilty of these crimes.

The UN took over peace keeping in E Timor then dropped the ball leading to further violence and deaths.

The UN failed to protect those displaced in Angola by civil war

They failed in Kashmir too

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq.

Oh and did i even mention the Palestinian crisis in Israel ... thats Genocide going on for decades. The U.N. failed in Israel.

Remember the Largest Buddhist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed ? well the UN couldn't even save that.

Do I need to go on ? No i don't want the UN to stick their ineffective noses anywhere else, they cant even be true to their mandate.

Plus if im honest the little blue uniform looks pathetic and reminds me of a thunderbirds cartoon.....im not a fan of the UN its a useless toothless money pit.

This little 12 girl spoke to the UN with more guts and determination than the UN has in its entire mandate it is a joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY

 

[DeletedUser14029]

During the Cold War UN Security Council mostly consisted of the Americans & Russians Vetoing each other

Oh well, it shows that if you got nuclear weapons - even SUSPECTED for having one - no one will touch you. Sure, the Americans & EU can go after Libya, go after their leader (and failing at that), do everything they can to PROLONG the conflict -

We see North Korean Government still standing there. Not only 'cos it got China supporting it, but coz it might have n00b nukes - but STILL a nuke - so...
yeah =.=

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Oh and did i even mention the Palestinian crisis in Israel ... thats Genocide going on for decades. The U.N. failed in Israel.

Actually I am afraid that was the British government that started that little problem

At the moment the EU and the UN just seemed to be dragging us (the UK in this case) into problems when we are still trying to deal with our own, such as bailing out bankrupt countries or sending money to supposed "Developing" countires whilst currently being in debt ourselves. As far as I am concerned we should not be involved in Libya regardless of what the UN says, its nothing to do with us.

Personally I feel dropping out of the EU would be a good thing for us, it might even keep the explosion of migrant workers under control

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Actually I am afraid that was the British government that started that little problem

Actually it was The House of Rothschild that got that started full swing but yes through the cooperation of the British government.

 

[DeletedUser15057]

eg - UN Resolutions 181, 194, 242, 338, 425, 476, 598, 661, 688, 1224, 1441.

Not too many resolved there!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

Nothing to wrong with the OP, and I know this forum has a tendency to go off-topic, but this thread has descended into 'crank's corner' right from the get-go.
The Opium Wars, Zionism, EU membership, admitted xenophobia and thinly veiled bigotry all in the first few posts before even much pretence of a discussion? Pretty ripe even by our prevailing standards.
Still I'd like to see some pretty robust action in favour of a free Tibet, currently being colonised by a country that has a record of condemning the colonialisms of others.
And the mandate on Libya authorised "all necessary means" (or words to that effect) in the safeguarding of the civilian population, so I guess you could interpret that to include targeting the head of their armed forces.

Consider this quote: "not all countries look what they seem" (the Pro100)
What does that even mean? Is it a koan?
Reminds me of a friend who overheard an old lady in the street saying "Those flowers aren't as pretty as they look".

 

[DeletedUser]

In answer to your original question; if there are going to be "international laws" they should be enforced or they're not worth the paper (or disk) they're written on. What I see as one of the biggest problems with it is that the laws seem to be based mainly on so-called democratic countries' beliefs, but there are probably more countries that don't share those beliefs. If they are international laws, they should be for the benefit of all, or most, of the nations governed by them. Just because some countries hold most of the power, either military or economical, that shouldn't mean that they have the right to regulate how other countries choose to live.

I don't really see why the UN should have any say about most things that happen within a country unless it directly affects another country. It would be nice if all people agreed on what rights humans should have, but I don't think that'll ever happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Justice League:
- consists (among others) of Superman, Batman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, Flash, Hawkgirl and Green Lantern
- is just and good as they're superheroes; the name also hints at it
- as they're all just and good they try to achieve the same goal and make the world a better place
- they're likely to succeed because they are superheroes with superhuman powers and know how to work together
- its opponents are not members or supported by members of the Justice League

United Nations:
- consists of 192 nations.
- has a security council with 15 members, 5 of them permanent that also gain the power of veto
- all members are mere real humans with opinions thereby negating a good/evil axis
- they united to make the world a better place which however is not the same goal as they're having different opinions
- they're unlikely to succeed everywhere because they're mere humans with only a marginal overlap of basic aims
- its opponents are members and/or supported by members of the UN, i.e. Israel is very unlikely to be punished by the UN (even when attacking civilians or UN observers themselves) because they're backed up by vetoes of the US

 

[DeletedUser22575]

The UN and International Law are both a joke.

Anytime you have a few countries with veto powers to stop any action from occurring based on what the vetoing countries sees as "their or their friends" best interest all you can expect is what we have received from the UN.

As far as International Law, who is going to enforce them. Where are the troops coming from? And who is going to pay for them?

I mean do you really expect the US for example to furnish troops to force themselves to follow some International Law. :laugh:

Not only that..if you are looking at a idealistic situation where the UN could pass International Laws in the "best interests of all" and have the ability to enforce them you are looking at a situation where all countries have surrendered their national sovereignty to the UN..and that will never happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its like old days when autocratic empires declared whimsical
decrees to justify their action.UN does that for US and EU.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Ultimate Failure of the UN:
When the Americans decide to unload near-expire ammunitions & drop bombs on countries without atomic weapon

UN didn't say crap and kept silent. No, I don't even agree that PRC & Russia should have stood by when they imposed the no-fly zone, an act infintely prolonging the civil war, and let the Americans & Europeans let fly missiles at Ghadafi which they have NO FREAKING RIGHT to.

The bad example is set.
Just because you want someone dead you can ignore all international regulations and blow the hell out of them because you got the bombs to. THEN draw up ome crap.

I will say FEW understand that Libya is now really not a civil war - clan war, really, when the Rebels were people of another clan. Care to tell them keep that to Tribal War?