1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

Inclusiveness of the mechanisms of international law. Need it?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by KeyHoleEye, Jun 11, 2024.

  1. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    According to existing UN rules, decisions of the UN Security Council are binding, in which its five permanent members (USA, Russia, China, UK and France) have the right to block any decision. Those. These are aristocratic countries. At the same time, the democratic decisions of the UN General Assembly with equal votes for all members of the organization are only advisory.Is this fair? Does this need to be changed somehow? If necessary, how exactly? And what could be the mechanisms for implementing such decisions?

    On my own behalf, I consider the current situation unfair. I believe that giving binding force to the UN General Assembly makes sense only if the real implementation of its decisions is developed. But I don’t know exactly how to force a state to comply with them if they refuse to do so, especially if it is a nuclear state.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2024
  2. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    No country should have a veto
     
    KeyHoleEye likes this.
  3. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    I agree, but the question was somewhat different. Should decisions of the General Assembly be binding? What should be the mechanism for their implementation?
    Do you understand what the matter is... If we approach the decisions of the General Assembly as mandatory, then Russia must return Crimea, France must return Mayotte, and Britain must return Chagos. How to force them to do this?
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2024
  4. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    I dont know, why should other countries have the ability to impose on others? Just because its through a democratic process doesn’t mean its not forceful… and those UN members weren’t elected to the UN by the people, so why should they have binding power over anyone

    those five have veto power on matters before the security council only… I.E. Russia could have veto our invasion of afghantan… we would have done it anyway but that’s just an example.
     
  5. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Exactly for the same reason why members of a society can impose rules that are binding on everyone in this society through the mechanisms of lawmaking. You have exactly the same rights to reject these norms. If you're in the minority, it's a shame, but that's how it works.
    Russia could veto if you tried to legitimize this invasion through the UN Security Council. But you invaded without any international sanctions. There was simply nothing for them to veto...
     
  6. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    Before going into bother Iraq and Afghanistan we first went to the UN. For Afghanistan was done by ISAF. International security assistance force. Even China abstained on that one, Russia let it happened. It passed the security counsel
    But people who weren’t elected by anyone in my country have no right to enforce anything on us. How’s that any different that the US enforcing its will on anyone?
     
  7. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    The bulk of the forces were US, but NATO was there. It was approved by the UN
     
  8. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    For example, Iraq and Afghanistan?
     
  9. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    I read we said fuck it did whatever we wanted… most of us now knowledge that was a huge fuck up. Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN. ISAF
     
  10. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    In Iraq
     
  11. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    I could complain about how Afghanistan was handled but the fact of it happening after 9/11 was inevitable
     
  12. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Will you refer to the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? The sanction was only for the so-called. "Vaughn in the Bay" in 1991, the 2003 invasion had no sanction.
     
  13. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Is this what the UN Security Council resolution looks like?
     
  14. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Actually, we have completely gone astray. Based on the content of the original questions, your answer is that no one, neither the UN Security Council nor the UN General Assembly, has the right to oblige any of the sovereign states, members of the UN. Did I understand you correctly?
     
  15. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    I said we went to the UN, Afghanistan was approved. Iraq wasn’t.
     
  16. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Which UN Security Council resolution authorizes the invasion of Afghanistan?
     
  17. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Found. Resolution 1386 (2001). International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in
    ensuring security in Kabul and its surrounding areas. For 6 months...
    Those. after 6 months, even in Kabul and surrounding areas it is an empty piece of paper.
     
  18. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    Short of stopping war crimes, no. Each country maintains the right to govern themselves. And of course other major, unforeseen circumstances.
     
  19. Bigsislover

    Bigsislover Trusted.Member

    Tha
    ts how everything starts, and then it gets extended. To the very end it was considered a UN operation. The US did the bulk of it, we were the one attacked after all, but it wasn’t just us.
     
  20. KeyHoleEye

    KeyHoleEye Trusted Member

    Understood. Thank you. The UN has jurisdiction exclusively on issues of war crimes. Your opinion is recorded
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2024