UN approves measure requiring states to justify veto:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/un-approves-measure-requiring-states-to-jus...

"The 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly have adopted by consensus a resolution requiring the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto.

The push for reform, which was greeted with applause in the chamber, was revived by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The measure is intended to make veto-holders the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom “pay a higher political price” when they use the veto to strike down a Security Council resolution, said one ambassador who asked to remain anonymous".


The article shows that since 1946, Russia has used the veto 119 times; the US -  82;  UK  - 29; China - 16; France - 16.

Note the Anglo Saxons have used the veto almost as much as Russia, ie 111 times.

But the fact remains the only way to institute genuine international law is to get rid of the veto altogether.

At least members are on the road to confronting  the disastrous influence of the reptilian brain - seated in the back of all our (thick!) skulls  - on rational thought.....

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 12:34pm:


Quite so, for reasons I explained - which you are highly unlikely to be prepared to confront, to repeat:

"But the fact remains the only way to institute genuine international law is to get rid of the veto altogether.

At least members are on the road to confronting  the disastrous influence of the reptilian brain - seated in the back of all our (thick!) skulls  - on rational thought which by definition requires the absurd concept of "legal" war to be  abandoned, in the age of MAD".

[Borrowed from wombatwoody:
"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]

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:


Justification would be a sham?  Well yes, but let's
be sure we understand the issues.

Eg we must all understand  why the veto was forced onto the UNSC in 1946, against the wishes of delegates from smaller countries,  as a precondition to get the great powers, ie, US and USSR, to sign onto the proposed UN Charter. 

The very existence of the veto requires acceptance of  the absurd concept of "legal" war.

..such is the disastrous influence of the unconscious  vestigial reptilian brain on the ability to think rationally.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 2:02pm:


The point is a UNSC, minus veto, as originally conceived by Australia's 'Doc' Evatt (former High Court judge) - with 99% of the world's military force, would be able to  intervene decisively, to prevent war.

Because a reformed  UNSC would also have the surveillance capacity to observe the logistics of a nation's  preparations for war. 

As to judicial power, all nations are currently members of the UN. The next step,  ie, signing up to an ICJ, is routine, once the absurd concept of "legal" war is abandoned by all member states. 

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 27^th, 2022 at 2:29pm:


You will need to clarify that statement (.....if you are interested in the  debate, not merely pushing an ideological view eg "to maintain the peace, you have to prepare for war": Peter Dutton).

A UNSC without veto, dedicated to implementing the decisions if an ICJ acting under international law (to which all nations are signed up)  implies the criminalization of war. Those 3 nations, like the c.200 others, would not be able to wage war.

[btw, recall what Einstein said about a world war after the next one (in the nuclear age):
"it will be fought with sticks and stones'].

In effect we are talking about a UNSC which speaks with one voice, to implement the judgments of an ICJ. 

There cannot possibly be ANY dispute that requires settlement by war, in the age of MAD.

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


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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?

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.... 

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

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

Hunger Games?