Advertisement
by Ukrainian Cossacks » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:25 am
by New Werpland » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:25 am
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.
by Risottia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:57 am
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Risottia wrote:No, the UN sucks a lot at most of what it tries to do.
Two of the roots of those problems are the UNDHR being legally non-binding and not being enforced via, let's say, suspension or expulsion from the UN; and the veto power of the permanent members of the SC.
Well, the UNDHR is legally binding. The problem is not with the UN, but with national sovereignty as a whole. Countries can't be put on trial against their will, ...
by Risottia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:58 am
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:02 am
Risottia wrote:Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, the UNDHR is legally binding. The problem is not with the UN, but with national sovereignty as a whole. Countries can't be put on trial against their will, ...
That tantamounts to not being binding.
Take the ECHR instead: it's binding and the countries can and are put on trial against their will - if they refuse, they face expulsion from the CoE. The UN should do the same with the UNDHR, and institute an international Human Rights Court with powers to overrule any national ruling or law.
by Risottia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:05 am
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Risottia wrote:That tantamounts to not being binding.
Take the ECHR instead: it's binding and the countries can and are put on trial against their will - if they refuse, they face expulsion from the CoE. The UN should do the same with the UNDHR, and institute an international Human Rights Court with powers to overrule any national ruling or law.
Nations will just start leaving the UN by then. Believe me, I have thought about this possibility myself, and if I can do anything to make it a working reality, I will. But if the UN declares such a court, nations with poor human right records will just leave the UN.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:11 am
Risottia wrote:Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Nations will just start leaving the UN by then. Believe me, I have thought about this possibility myself, and if I can do anything to make it a working reality, I will. But if the UN declares such a court, nations with poor human right records will just leave the UN.
You know, I wouldn't exactly weep if it happened. I'm rather pissed at the idea that the vote of, let's say, Sudan, Belarus and North Korea weighs exactly as much as the vote of Norway, Canada and New Zealand about, dunno, the actions to be taken about refugees from ethnical cleansing policies.
by Risottia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:15 am
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Risottia wrote:
You know, I wouldn't exactly weep if it happened. I'm rather pissed at the idea that the vote of, let's say, Sudan, Belarus and North Korea weighs exactly as much as the vote of Norway, Canada and New Zealand about, dunno, the actions to be taken about refugees from ethnical cleansing policies.
Oh, yeah, it's horrifying that nations use their 'national sovereignty', a right given by international law, to disobey all other bases of law altogether. It is rightly disgusting that a nation like North Korea can claim their sovereignty to keep their bloody grip over their country. But the UN is, right now, a good way to keep conversation at least at a minor level,
by United States Kingdom » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:50 am
Gardocia wrote:Well, Australia's PM is still imprisoning refugees, so I'd say no.
by Sklavinia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:53 am
by Chestaan » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:54 am
by TimberWolves » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:58 am
by United States Kingdom » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:12 pm
Once labelled “the most dangerous city in the world,” Mogadishu is now bustling with activity. Cars and people fill the streets and the sound of hammers has replaced that of guns, Augustine Mahiga, the UN special representative to Somalia, told reporters in Nairobi. When he first visited the city in 2010, it was a ghost town, he said. The only vehicles he could see on the roads were military trucks and an occasional donkey cart. “There wasn’t a single building that didn’t have bullet holes, and most had been destroyed.” While he was meeting with a Somali leader, for two or three hours “it was just the sounds of guns, guns of different calibres, small guns, big guns and big booms.…”
Mogadishu has been free from the iron grip of the Al-Shabaab rebel group since August 2011, when it was flushed out by forces of the Somalia Transitional Federal Government with the help of troops from the 9,000-strong African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).
by Genivaria » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:16 pm
Sklavinia wrote:The only thing the U.N. does a good job at is being a charity. It pretty much sucks at trying to maintain world peace.
by Skappola » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:47 pm
by Kalifati Arab shqiptar » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:01 pm
by United States Kingdom » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Skappola wrote:It's doing well with humanitarian aid, but the rivalry between the West and Russia & between the West & China prevents it from carrying out successful peacekeeping operations in recent times.
Even when they are able to carry out peacekeeping missions, they have a very high failure rate. Just look at Africa - Mali is going through a religious civil war with Azawad, South Sudan is experiencing violent ethnic conflicts, and the CAR is undergoing a genocide of Muslims perpetuated by radical Christian militias. The UN has been directly involved in peacekeeping missions in all of these conflicts, and have failed to make a significant lasting impact in any of them.
Then there are the conflicts in which UN intervention is being stifled by politics & veto power, such as the Syrian civil war.
by Liberty and Linguistics » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:04 pm
Gardocia wrote:Well, Australia's PM is still imprisoning refugees, so I'd say no.
by Liberty and Linguistics » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:06 pm
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.
by The Serbian Empire » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:07 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:32 pm
Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:U.N. is doing a ok job. Needs to be more militaristic, but in other hand we don't need that, since we have NATO.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Kalifati Arab shqiptar » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:38 pm
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:44 pm
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by The balkens » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:46 pm
United Marxist Nations wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
I'd say NATO should be tied to the UN and the Security Council should be upon a majority vote, not upon an unanimous decision.
NATO is not a neutral actor, and isn't meant for the entire world. And the UN Charter makes it so any permanent member can veto any resolution.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -Britain-, Cannot think of a name, Corporate Collective Salvation, Deblar, Ethel mermania, Fenwich, Gorutimania, Kurp, New Crywyzyxycynya, New-Minneapolis, San Luis Abbey, Valrifall
Advertisement