Australian Politics Forum - UN approves requiring states to justify veto.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 82754
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #15 - Apr 27^th, 2022 at 7:01pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 6:17pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 5:25pm:

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN?

Absolute national sovereignty is obsolete, there are greater exigencies re settlement of disputes between nations.

Quote:

Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!!

Just revealing your preference for resorting to war to settle disputes between nations.

Quote:

Started off as a good idea...

Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

By enabling virtual disarmament, since no nation has a need to wage war, now that the days of empire building are over, and "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible", under real international law.

Quote:

Anyone?? It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses.......

"legal" inside Germany, but Hitler had designs OUTSIDE Germany.......

Quote:

EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning....

All because war was - and still is - "legal" (according to the Geneva Conventions, even).

Quote:

and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

Yes, that's the result of the quaint 'non-interventionist' US policy in those days, before the US became the "world policeman" (after WW2).

Quote:

So - are we now to believe two things:-

1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?

No, because UN 'law' re dispute settlement between nations (actually adjudicated in an ICJ) is concerned only with said dispute settlement.

Quote:

2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

Not in a nation's internal governance as noted above; however military dictatorships like the Myanmar junta need to face an ICJ and ICC.

Quote:

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

You have ceased dealing with the notion of war between nations, and are now dealing with civil war, in which international law may not have jurisprudence.

Note; in a more orderly world where war is outlawed, and economic prosperity is promulgated, all those conflicts you cite would be of a much smaller scale because local militias (and the international arms trade) wouldn't legally exist.

Under effective international law, countries only need police forces to maintain internal order, not standing armies.

Quote:

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

All explained for you above.

Quote:

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse.... Cool

Actually Guterrez went to Russia and Ukraine today in a (futile) attempt to show the current UN is relevant.

I am explaining how the UN can "get up of its arse" and be relevant (ie actually maintain the peace.

You? Note:

"It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptilian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behavior."
Carl Sagan, The Dragons Of Eden

So much wrong there - I don;t have all night to argue with you - just accept you are wrong.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Laugh till you cry

Gold Member

Online

Posts: 15862
In your happy place
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #16 - Apr 27^th, 2022 at 7:27pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 5:25pm:

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN?

Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!!

Started off as a good idea...

Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

Anyone?? It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses....... EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning.... and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

So - are we now to believe two things:-

1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?
2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse.... Cool

Uncle Sam will never allow an authority outside its constitution to have authority over the USA for whatever reason.

The richest and most militarily powerful nations will always exert power and influence over lesser nations.

The overthrow of the Whitlam government is evidence of that.

The UN only has the money nations donate to it. It has no authority to tax any nation. It has no military force. It has no enforcement authority and never will have.

Back to top

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 82754
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #17 - Apr 27^th, 2022 at 8:49pm

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 5:25pm:

Another assault on national sovereignty - who ever said the UN had the right to demand that any nation justify itself to the UN?

Falling apart at the seams, it seems.....too much of this Neo-Stalinist Fascism with some amazing assumption that this house of discussion should now become The New World Dictator!!

Started off as a good idea...

Again I ask - how is such a body to maintain peace and law and order without exercising war and abrogating laws of individual nations????

Anyone?? It has been said by more learned personages than my good self, that everything the Nazis did in Germany was 'legal' since it was passed through their 'elected' houses....... EVEN THEN - when these 'laws' were being used to kill people and steal their property and livelihoods etc - nobody in the west declared war on Nazi Germany until it went too far and would not take a warning.... and the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany itself declared war on the United States.

So - are we now to believe two things:-

1. That every 'law' or equivalent passed through the unelected United Nations is equally a valid 'law' etc?
2. That it is somehow the absolute right of the UN to intervene with military force to correct what is perceived as being 'wrongful' about a nation's governance?

The UN dragged its heels over Rwanda and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over Kosovo etc and many died..... the UN dragged its heels over The Congo and many died...... it took 'coalitions of the willing' to intervene actively and finally put an end to all of those areas of murder and conflict.... and that included, in some case, mercenaries, who are outlawed by the UN and receive no benefits of prisoner of war status.

Are we now to believe that an ununited United Nations will somehow become the peacemaker of Planet Earth?

Maybe when it gets off its arse on its high horse.... Cool

Uncle Sam will never allow an authority outside its constitution to have authority over the USA for whatever reason.

The richest and most militarily powerful nations will always exert power and influence over lesser nations.

The overthrow of the Whitlam government is evidence of that.

The UN only has the money nations donate to it. It has no authority to tax any nation. It has no military force. It has no enforcement authority and never will have.

Neither will most other nations.... any who thinks differently can start the list... what about .....

Colombia? Saudi Arabia? Russia? Ukraine? China? Japan? Venezuela? The Solomons? Vietnam? France? Sudan? Israel? Somalia? India? Afghanistan?

Must be one in there somewhere prepared to get the ball rolling... this is what I love about high-flying theories..... when they hit ground zero they have crashed....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #18 - Apr 27^th, 2022 at 11:12pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 6:58pm:

Once again - so you want UN sovereignty over everyone and everything?

Once again, no.

Establishment of international law to outlaw war as a means of dispute settlement between nations is not "UN sovereignty over everyone and everything"

That's just your unconscious reptilian brain inhibiting your capacity for rational thought.

Quote:

How is that any different in approach? How do you propose to being all nations into this umbrella and make them comply?

By examination of the issues involved in maintaining peace between nations, and promoting the eventual adoption of the necessary institutional machinery (as first conceived by 'Doc" Evatt in 1946).

Do not be alarmed by the prospect of the eradication of war between nations, your vestigial reptilian brain is only "yanking your chain" (though you can't see it...)

Quote:

Hunger Games?

That's what we have at present, in this and all wars, as food prices are driven beyond the reach of the poor, globally.

Back to top

IP Logged

Laugh till you cry

Gold Member

Online

Posts: 15862
In your happy place
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #19 - Apr 27^th, 2022 at 11:49pm

Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling to understand the fact that the USA will never submit to be ruled by an entity that has judicial power over all nations and a means to enforce peace or prevent wars.

It is an unwritten clause in the US constitution that "there is nothing more peaceful than a dead man unless it is a foreign dead man."

Back to top

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #20 - Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:08am

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 11:49pm:

Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling to understand the fact that the USA will never submit to be ruled by an entity that has judicial power over all nations and a means to enforce peace or prevent wars.

Not only right wing extremists. The modern ALP has divorced itself from 'Doc' Evatt's original no UNSC veto proposal.

Of course the US would be one of the five (or perhaps seven) nations acting as guarantors of world peace, in a UNSC without veto.

Quote:

It is an unwritten clause in the US constitution that "there is nothing more peaceful than a dead man unless it is a foreign dead man."

Quite so, but all constitutions (written or unwritten) are amenable to enlightenment.

Back to top

IP Logged

Laugh till you cry Gold Member Online Posts: 15862 In your happy place Gender:	Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto. Reply #21 - Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:15am Ozpolitic right-wing extremists are struggling with comprehension they should have mastered in primary school. The USA will not submit to being commanded by a non-US entity.
Back to top	Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me. IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100684
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #22 - Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 4:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 3:44pm:

There is only The International Court of Justice in the Hague but:
China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen
don't recognise it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Note: the ICC deals with individual criminal prosecutions, and is not an arm of the UN; whereas the ICJ adjudicates international disputes and is affiliated with the UN.

Quote:

Therefore they can get away with:

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[100]

Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages

Note the idiocy of trying to define "legal" war (via the Geneva Conventions):

"Willful killing" is what soldiers do.

"Willfully causing great suffering" and
"Destruction and appropriation of property' are unavoidable conditions of modern warfare.

"Unlawful deportation and transfer"...though civilians fleeing war zones are always a much greater catastrophe.

Quote:

There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:[100]

Murder
Mutilation
Cruel treatment
Torture
Outrages upon personal dignity
Taking hostages
Sentencing or execution without due process

So, applicable to civil war; but of course many civil wars are proxies for international conflict.

Quote:

Additionally, there are 56 other crimes defined by article 8: 35 that apply to international armed conflicts and 21 that apply to non-international armed conflicts.[100] Such crimes include attacking civilians or civilian objects, attacking peacekeepers, causing excessive incidental death or damage, transferring populations into occupied territories, treacherously killing or wounding, denying quarter, pillaging, employing poison, using expanding bullets, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and conscripting or using child soldiers.[103]

International war should be outlawed, via international judicial machinery; international war is insane in the age of MAD.

Whereas civil wars are trickier; can violence within a nation's borders achieve the desired goals of the respective parties?

That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 12097 Gender:	Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto. Reply #23 - Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am: That's true - yet here we are. Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to. Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding. No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 82754
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #24 - Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am:

That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding.

No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal? There are already categories of legal and illegal war -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #25 - Apr 30^th, 2022 at 10:20pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am:

That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding.

No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal? There are already categories of legal and illegal war -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Because if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members who will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2022 at 11:40am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #26 - May 1^st, 2022 at 5:46am

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 10:20pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am:

That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding.

No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal? There are already categories of legal and illegal war -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Because if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members.

Well, if you have faith that such a treaty would work, I cannot contradict opinion, but just look how dismal the UN is at achieving anything. Countries disarming would be vulnerable just as Ukraine was when its sovereignty was supposed to be guaranteed by Russia among others. If a government thinks it is strong enough to invade another country, the only thing that will prevent it doing so is a transparent foreign policy within a strong democracy that includes multiple un-intimidated opposition parties. And even that won't work sometimes.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 100684
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #27 - May 1^st, 2022 at 6:37am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 12:22am:

That's true - yet here we are.
Any of those nations not bound by the law can do whatever they want to.

Oh ye of limited insight and even less understanding.

No nation is "bound by the law" at present, and in fact war is still "legal".....

What makes you think it will just stop the moment it is made illegal? There are already categories of legal and illegal war -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

War will never stop because some countries are prepared
to go rogue as Putin has done.
Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified
as a form of self defense.

In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #28 - May 1^st, 2022 at 11:49am

issuevoter wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 5:46am:

Well, if you have faith that such a treaty would work, I cannot contradict opinion, but just look how dismal the UN is at achieving anything.

The UN "can't achieve anything" because it was crippled at its inception (in 1946), when the US and USSR demanded the right to a veto, in the UNSC.

Stop and think: why did they demand the right to a veto?

Quote:

Countries disarming would be vulnerable just as Ukraine was when its sovereignty was supposed to be guaranteed by Russia among others.

Addressed above, and in post #25.

Quote:

If a government thinks it is strong enough to invade another country, the only thing that will prevent it doing so is a transparent foreign policy within a strong democracy that includes multiple un-intimidated opposition parties. And even that won't work sometimes.

No kidding....the whole world protested against the Bush/Blair/Howard illegal invasion of Iraq, to no avail....

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12097
Gender: male

Re: UN approves requiring states to justify veto.
Reply #29 - May 1^st, 2022 at 12:01pm

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 6:37am:

War will never stop because some countries are prepared to go rogue as Putin has done.
Even the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal but justified
as a form of self defense.

Correct; did you read my proposal for the criminalization of war, via establishment of real international law?

namely: " ..... if war is criminalized, nations will not need to maintain standing militaries, except permanent UNSC members which will share the responsibility for maintaining the peace, with fail-safe mechanisms re access to any military deployment by the UNSC members".

Quote:

In March 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq vowing to destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and end the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, and the UN sec. general himself (Kofi Annan) declared this to be an "illegal" war....but the UN itself is complicit in war so long as the absurd doctrine of "legal" war stands.

Back to top

IP Logged