Reminding everyone why the UN and Intl' Law are good things (1 Viewer)

[jakurus]

All you hear from the news and political commentators these days is that the UN is weak, corrupt, and useless. International law is laughed at.

And from these beliefs, many of those people go on to say that the UN and International law should not exist. They get angry and lament how dirty, inefficient, or silly the practices seem.

I want to remind everyone that just because an institution fails to prevent a problem, that does not make it useless. Yes, the UN did not act in time to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but if the UN did not exist, it would been even worse.

Both the UN and Intl' law have positives that provide benefits far greater than an intl' system without them could provide. They have very few negatives, far outweighed by the good that having an orderly body to at least talk to other countries provides.

It really bothers me when I hear politicians and commentators say we should leave the UN and let it dissemble. They are making a simple flaw in logic.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

All you hear from the news and political commentators these days is that the UN is weak, corrupt, and useless. International law is laughed at.

And from these beliefs, many of those people go on to say that the UN and International law should not exist. They get angry and lament how dirty, inefficient, or silly the practices seem.

I want to remind everyone that just because an institution fails to prevent a problem, that does not make it useless. Yes, the UN did not act in time to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but if the UN did not exist, it would been even worse.

Both the UN and Intl' law have positives that provide benefits far greater than an intl' system without them could provide. They have very few negatives, far outweighed by the good that having an orderly body to at least talk to other countries provides.

It really bothers me when I hear politicians and commentators say we should leave the UN and let it dissemble. They are making a simple flaw in logic.

The UN would be a good thing if it excluded totalitarian states. Do you know which countries comprise the UN Human Rights Commission?

 

[ludahai]

The UN would be a good thing if it excluded totalitarian states. Do you know which countries comprise the UN Human Rights Commission?

I agree 100 percent. More than half of the members of the United Nations are NOT democratic states. No wonder the UN won't openly criticize some of the world's worst human rights abusers. They are on the committees that monitor such abuses. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I agree 100 percent. More than half of the members of the United Nations are NOT democratic states. No wonder the UN won't openly criticize some of the world's worst human rights abusers. They are on the committees that monitor such abuses. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!

The same goes for the International Tribunal. The Europeans criticize us for refusing to join....but I just can't see an American citizen being tried by a judge who receives his orders from the totalitarian state he represents.

 

[Kelzie]

The same goes for the International Tribunal. The Europeans criticize us for refusing to join....but I just can't see an American citizen being tried by a judge who receives his orders from the totalitarian state he represents.

You don't get the International Tribune at all. The judges are picked for their ability to uphold international law, much like our judges are picked to uphold our law. A persons own political feeling should not get in the way of their decisions as a judge. If an American breaks international law, what's wrong with trying him/her in an international court?

 

[Kelzie]

The UN would be a good thing if it excluded totalitarian states. Do you know which countries comprise the UN Human Rights Commission?

I don't think this is such a good idea. One of the most important functions of the UN IMO, is that it provides a place for countries to meet and try to settle disagreement without force. If you exclude totalitarian states, who would presumably be the ones that people have the most problems with, than we would have no forum to talk with them. Not only that, but because they are members, we can put more pressure on them to change some of their policies. They would have no reason to listen to us if they weren't.

 

[Coolguy]

... but if the UN did not exist, it would been even worse.

How so?

Both the UN and Intl' law have positives that provide benefits far greater than an intl' system without them could provide. They have very few negatives, far outweighed by the good that having an orderly body to at least talk to other countries provides.

Very few negatives? and far outweighed by the positives? I seriously doubt it.

It really bothers me when I hear politicians and commentators say we should leave the UN and let it dissemble. They are making a simple flaw in logic.

I don't think it is at all.
There is more to just disassembling it. Such as rebuilding it or creating a new organization that can do the job that the UN "seems" to fail at.

 

[galenrox]

How so?


Very few negatives? and far outweighed by the positives? I seriously doubt it.


I don't think it is at all.
There is more to just disassembling it. Such as rebuilding it or creating a new organization that can do the job that the UN "seems" to fail at.

So basically, he made a point, and your response is "no".

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I don't think this is such a good idea. One of the most important functions of the UN IMO, is that it provides a place for countries to meet and try to settle disagreement without force. If you exclude totalitarian states, who would presumably be the ones that people have the most problems with, than we would have no forum to talk with them. Not only that, but because they are members, we can put more pressure on them to change some of their policies. They would have no reason to listen to us if they weren't.

I disagree. I think the way to put more pressure on totalitarian states is to EXCLUDE them from the International Community. The UN has failed miserably (just as her predecessor, the League of Nations) at settling disagreements. A tyrant concedes nothing in a forum.

Those who de evil in the world are not as dangerous as those who look on and do nothing.

 

[galenrox]

I disagree. I think the way to put more pressure on totalitarian states is to EXCLUDE them from the International Community. The UN has failed miserably (just as her predecessor, the League of Nations) at settling disagreements. A tyrant concedes nothing in a forum.

Those who de evil in the world are not as dangerous as those who look on and do nothing.

Right, and removing a forum for international discussion would remove a lot of potential things that could be done without violence.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

You don't get the International Tribune at all. The judges are picked for their ability to uphold international law, much like our judges are picked to uphold our law. A persons own political feeling should not get in the way of their decisions as a judge. If an American breaks international law, what's wrong with trying him/her in an international court?

The International court can be used as a forum for politically motivated prosecutions. We have no shortage of enemies in the world. We should not place our citizens under the jurisdiction of that court. A court must be able to operate without being prejudiced by political motivations, and frankly, I don't know of an international organization, to date, that can make that claim.

I'll "get" the International Tribunal when all the judges who participate in it hail from Democratic states and receive the same scrutiny as say.....Supreme Court justices.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Right, and removing a forum for international discussion would remove a lot of potential things that could be done without violence.

Such as...?

 

[galenrox]

Such as...?

diplomacy, discussion, you know, the purpose of the UN

 

[MiamiFlorida]

diplomacy, discussion, you know, the purpose of the UN

Honorable and worthy principles, to be sure....but very, very far from the reality of the U.N.

In an organization that allows dictators and terrorists to enjoy membership...even in the Human Rights Commisssion....it is impossible to find constructive discussions. Breaking bread with brutal dictators is not diplomacy...it's appeasement.

 

[jakurus]

That is absolute nonsense.

The UN's purpose is not to provide a righteous governing body to solve the world's problems, it's a forum to include everyone in the discussion. That's why it doesn't have much real authority.

To say that we should not include dictatorships in any international forum is ridiculous.

Non-dictatorships are free to form any organization they want, in fact, I think that would be a great idea, but to say that because the UN doesn't do something it's not designed to do makes it poor functioning makes no sense.

 

[Kelzie]

The International court can be used as a forum for politically motivated prosecutions. We have no shortage of enemies in the world. We should not place our citizens under the jurisdiction of that court. A court must be able to operate without being prejudiced by political motivations, and frankly, I don't know of an international organization, to date, that can make that claim.

I'll "get" the International Tribunal when all the judges who participate in it hail from Democratic states and receive the same scrutiny as say.....Supreme Court justices.

And what if our citizens are guilty of a politically motivated crime? Why are we so much superior that our citizens should not be tried by the same court?

And you obviously know nothing about how difficult it is to become a judge in the International Tribune. Just becoming a lawyer for it is incredibly difficult.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

That is absolute nonsense.

The UN's purpose is not to provide a righteous governing body to solve the world's problems, it's a forum to include everyone in the discussion. That's why it doesn't have much real authority.

To say that we should not include dictatorships in any international forum is ridiculous.

Non-dictatorships are free to form any organization they want, in fact, I think that would be a great idea, but to say that because the UN doesn't do something it's not designed to do makes it poor functioning makes no sense.

If the UN was not set up to solve the world's problems, as you say (and someone should inform them of that) then that organization is totally worthless.

As I said before, tyrants are not swayed by "forums" or "discussions"...they simply use them to exploit weaknesses. There is no benefit for free nations...or for oppressed people for that fact.....in the recognition of states that systematically violate human rights.

History has a funny habit of repeating itself. I suggest you revisit Neville Chamberlain.

 

[jallman]

I still say I dont see what purpose the UN is serving anymore for the free world. Of course, it's a place where nations can talk out differences, but at the same time, we are in the middle of a supposed war on terror. How can we be expected to sit on a council with known supporters of terror? I am not saying disband the UN, but I think it is time for the democratic nations of the world to form a stronger, exclusive, and more productive allied organization. Why should we even consider the notion of taking the opinions of despots and tyrants into consideration?

 

[MiamiFlorida]

And what if our citizens are guilty of a politically motivated crime? Why are we so much superior that our citizens should not be tried by the same court?

And you obviously know nothing about how difficult it is to become a judge in the International Tribune. Just becoming a lawyer for it is incredibly difficult.

If our citizens are guilty of politically motivated crimes? I believe we have a legal system in place to deal with that.

You should not make assumptions about what I know.... or don't know about the International Tribune. As for the selection process for judges in the I.T., there are all sorts of words about how candidates must be of good moral character, experience in the law, integrity, and so on and so forth, but the bottom line is that they're selected by secret vote amongst the signatory nations, with each nation having one vote and candidates requiring a two-thirds affirmation to be selected. (Andorra and Brazil each will get the same size vote.)

The process is loaded with safeguards which guard nothing, and what you'll end up with is a tribunal made up primarily of people from all over the world who will, in the main, look out for their own. Decisions will be based on horsetrading and mutual back-scratching, not on the basis of justice. And since the majority of signatories will be poor, powerless third-world nations, that's where the majority of the judges will be from, just as soon as they realize that they can form a voting bloc and use it to take over the mechanism. This is going to end up being just about as impartial as the UN General Assembly.

 

[ludahai]

You don't get the International Tribune at all. The judges are picked for their ability to uphold international law, much like our judges are picked to uphold our law. A persons own political feeling should not get in the way of their decisions as a judge. If an American breaks international law, what's wrong with trying him/her in an international court?

Talk about naive. THe President of the ICJ is from China. You don't think that if there were a case to come up regarding China that he would vote in favor of China rather than looking at the merits of the case? Of course these ICJ appointments are political, as will be ICC appointments.

 

[Kelzie]

Talk about naive. THe President of the ICJ is from China. You don't think that if there were a case to come up regarding China that he would vote in favor of China rather than looking at the merits of the case? Of course these ICJ appointments are political, as will be ICC appointments.

If you know of any cases where he unnecessarily favored China, please provide them. Otherwise you're just guessing.

 

[ludahai]

If you know of any cases where he unnecessarily favored China, please provide them. Otherwise you're just guessing.

There have been none involving China in his tenure. However, if you knew anything about so-called Chinese "academics", you know there are only two kinds of Chinese adacemics. 1) Favor everything supported by the ChiCom regime. 2) Academics either in prison or exiled overseas.

 

[Kelzie]

There have been none involving China in his tenure. However, if you knew anything about so-called Chinese "academics", you know there are only two kinds of Chinese adacemics. 1) Favor everything supported by the ChiCom regime. 2) Academics either in prison or exiled overseas.

I thought there was a substantial number of academics still in China and unhappy with the government. Didn't they just have a riot?

 

[Coolguy]

Originally said by galenrox
So basically, he made a point, and your response is "no".

No?

 

[Kelzie]

Originally said by galenrox
So basically, he made a point, and your response is "no".

No?

What about "no!?!"