chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 1:59pm:


Ah - we are making progress; now you have identified  where you see an imagined  contradiction.

So the first statement  recognizes what SHOULD happen, if we are to achieve an international rules-based system.

The second statement is a matter of simple logic.

Admittedly poor old Josep Borrell (foreign minister of the EU) is currently trying to work out whether to follow UN agencies like the ICC and ICJ, or Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza... he is confused like you.


Quote:


Correct: good to see you can at least copy information correctly, even if you can't  think logically. 

There has to be some way to solve European territorial disputes without starting wars?

Maybe the UN could enforce a plebiscite in any any country where there is a dispute
and have free and fair monitored UN elections there to decide what to do?
Proper elections in: Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea
to see if Russia or Ukraine would take control.
We can't be risking WW3 every time Europe has a dispute over some land?

Hardly anyone had even heard of:
Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia 3 years ago.
Hasn't the world learnt anything from WW1 and WW2 ?

Quote:


they already tried those

didn't work

Bobby. wrote on May 28^th, 2024 at 10:41am:


Good post, but for the UN to "enforce" anything including an international rules-based system (to avoid war, the lesson we SHOULD have learnt after WW2) requires a UNSC capable of enforcement of the law.

Exit the UNSC veto.....

thegreatdivide wrote on May 27^th, 2024 at 2:26pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

Incompatible is 'incapable of co-existing'.
The impossible is not impossible. English language is not English, it's split between sanity and  thegreatdivide.

chimera wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 1:27pm:


Ah...now we are narrowing it down, thanks, we will soon nail it....

TGD:

means

Absolute national sovereignty is incapable of co-existing with (is incompatible with) an international rules-based system.

iow, just as in a federal government, certain powers reside with the states and others with the national government  (eg national defense), ie, the states don't have absolute sovereignty in the federation, so with international law.

chimera wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 5:33pm:


Mere sophistry; you are now arguing over the meaning of the phrase "national sovereignty", when most people understand it means "absolute national sovereignty", ie, NOT subject to international law. 

Quote:


Correct. The UN is the institutional machinery to legislate  international law. 

Quote:


Incorrect, see above. All nations are members of the UN, and they all have ambassadors at the UN, but not all nations obey its rulings, owing to the obsolete concept of absolute national sovereignty- which is incompatible with an international rules-based system.

Quote:


That is the problem; they don't practice what they preach, namely, an international rules-based system. 

Quote:


I should hope your government has provided the requisite agencies to assist you with your alcohol problem; the topic here is international law to avoid war - the great desire and vision of those who came together for the creation of the UN Charter in San Francisco in late 1945...