Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 08-09-2004, 09:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,688
Does the UN have any real power

I know the security council can pass resolutions, but they will probably be deadlocked alot due to the 5 vetos and the fact that you need 9 yeses to get a resolution passed. Also, are member countries forced to follow sanctions after the UN applies them to a place like Myanmar, Sudan, Libya, Iran, etc.? What happens if they don't?

WHat about general assembly resolutions? I know Israel gets tons of these and it doesn't seem to affect them.

What about the WTO, can they force a country to change its international trading methods? What are teh consequences of not going along with it and are other countries required to follow these rules?

What about the ICJ? Any authority to enforce its rulings there?

Basically it seems that unless a country runs the risk of losing something it values (its ability to trade freely with other countries, or grants, or something like that) and unless other countries are willing to comply with UN rulings which take away grants or impose sanctions that the UN is impotent.
#2
Old 08-09-2004, 09:09 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: 21į 20' N 157į 55' W
Posts: 6,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
I know the security council can pass resolutions, but they will probably be deadlocked alot due to the 5 vetos and the fact that you need 9 yeses to get a resolution passed. Also, are member countries forced to follow sanctions after the UN applies them to a place like Myanmar, Sudan, Libya, Iran, etc.? What happens if they don't?

WHat about general assembly resolutions? I know Israel gets tons of these and it doesn't seem to affect them.

What about the WTO, can they force a country to change its international trading methods? What are teh consequences of not going along with it and are other countries required to follow these rules?

What about the ICJ? Any authority to enforce its rulings there?

Basically it seems that unless a country runs the risk of losing something it values (its ability to trade freely with other countries, or grants, or something like that) and unless other countries are willing to comply with UN rulings which take away grants or impose sanctions that the UN is impotent.
no

go read the un charter
#3
Old 08-09-2004, 09:22 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: KNOXTN
Posts: 4,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
.
The U.N., The League of Nations, and Communism all sound good in theory and fail(ed) miserably in practice.

Each participant has their own agenda rather than the group as whole and can never reach an enforceable conclusion.
__________________
Do nothing simply if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful
spingears
#4
Old 08-09-2004, 09:42 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,438
Can the UN force this or that, compel the other or invade and occupy whoever?

No, but does this mean it has no power? Again no.

The US at the moment is in one of its hard power periods. The Bush administration doesn't do soft power so there's a mindset that power means men in green, big full intercontinental weapons gleaming in the sun and unshaven Arabs cowering before an upright stars and strips fluttering prettily in the breeze. Say force 3.

Substitute 'efficacy' for 'power' and it lets some light in. Can the UN make things happen? Yes it can.

Briefly, UN resolution can be persuasive as a statement of the joined will of the international community. Sudan, which was the recent poster-child of the ineffectual UN argument, has allowed a change of policy following a UN resolution.

The UN can appear as an intermediary body. To have the appearance of an impartial body on the ground can be very efficacious. To put it another way, what does political power rest on? The general answer is 'legitimacy.' Having the UN's stamp on your books can mark your political actions as 'legitimate.'
#5
Old 08-09-2004, 09:53 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
What about the WTO, can they force a country to change its international trading methods? What are teh consequences of not going along with it and are other countries required to follow these rules?

What about the ICJ? Any authority to enforce its rulings there?
The World Trade Organization is not an arm of the UN, it is a separate organization, created in 1995 by the Marrakech Agreement, as a secretariat to administer the General Agreements on Tarrifs and Trade. It has 147 members. All members are required to accord each other most-favored-nation trading status. Decisions are made by consensus, not by vote. See http://wto.org/ (official homepage) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization (Wikipedia article).

The ICJ is a UN arm but its jurisdiction is limited. From the Wikipedia ([url:

Quote:
The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the General Assembly or Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

<snip>

Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. This does not preclude private interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the Security Council may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the security council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the Court's powers have been limited by the willingness of the convicted party to abide by the Court's ruling, as well as the Security Council's willingness to enforce consequences. However, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party".

For example, the United States of America had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled the US was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and was ordered to pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did, (see: Nicaragua v. United States).

Examples of cases include:

A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law;

A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them

A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area

A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War

An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity of presenting written or oral statements. The Court's advisory procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious proceedings, and the sources of applicable law are the same. In principle the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character and are therefore not binding as such on the requesting bodies. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be binding.
#6
Old 08-09-2004, 09:59 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Sorry, here's the Wikipedia link for the World Court article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...urt_of_Justice
#7
Old 08-09-2004, 10:03 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,189
Itís probably a mistake to think of the UN as a wholly separate entity from its members.

The UN is an assembly of sovereign states, and it acts as a mechanism through which the community of states can express and sometimes enforce its will provided there is a sufficiently strong consensus behind that will.

Take three examples:

As you rightly point out, there have been any number of General Assembly resolutions criticising various actions of Israel, but none of them have led to any enforcement action. GA resolutions generally arenít binding or enforced; they may have some political or diplomatic value. Actual mandatory action is the preserve of the Security Council. Thatís not to say that the GA has no important functions; it elects the rotating members of the Security Council, for one thing.

When Sadaam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, the Security Council took prompt and ultimately effective action to remove him. This was, of course, led by the US, as was the military campaign which the SC authorised. The SC is structured so that it cannot act effectively unless all of the five permanent members are prepared to give action at least their grudging assent (and, in practice, effective action is unlikely unless one or more permanent members are enthusiastically behind it). This is deliberate; there needs to be a strong consensus, not just a simple majority of votes, behind any mandatory action. (A (very loose) comparison can be made with the US electoral college system for electing the President, which seeks to ensure that the winning candidate doesnít just need an absolute majority of the popular vote; he also needs to have his support spread across the country.)

In 1993 the US completely failed to secure the necessary consensus in the Security Council for military action against Iraq. It went ahead and organised its own party with its own friends, of course, and there was Ė obviously Ė no consensus in the Security Council to prevent that. The rights and wrongs of the US position are not the point here (and, please, anybody wishing to engage with that issue, open another thread!); the point is simply to note what the SC, in practice, can and cannot do in various circumstances.

The bottom line is that, while thereís a great deal that the UN cannot do, thereís a great deal that it can do. But it can only take really effective action where there is a broad consensus in favour of action, involving the assent of all the five permanent powers and the enthusiastic support of at least one of them. Where those conditions exist, the UN can do a good deal. They rarely exist in favour of taking military action, but thatís not necessarily the fault of the UN.

The UN also provides a very useful forum for the development of consensus, for bargaining, and for enabling states or groups of states to arrive at common positions. Much of this is fairly low-key, so you donít notice it. And much of it has nothing to do with taking military action. The international consensus that enabled smallpox to be eradicated, for instance, was formed through, and acted upon by, the UN. Similarly a host of international agreements on everything from the protection of the Antartic environment to the treatment of refugees have been developed, adopted and implemented through the UN. Itís slow, itís cumbersome, itís expensive and it hasnít lived up to expectations, but it has been a more effective instrument for developing and implementing international co-operation than anything which went before, or any of the alternatives currently on offfer.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: dialog movie bull shitt meaning klingon home world coffee boston style torn uretha wasp protection suit is textbooks.com legit lake texcoco omaha steaks cooler self basting turkey 2 lane road vixen definition heighth vs height how do you know if someone blocked your email on yahoo the office dog in car golden caster sugar substitute us what is a yankee white clearance can i use my ez pass on another car he washer vs regular washer do spaghetti noodles go bad ratio of natural logarithms the side of my nose smells bad bilbo baggins speech i know half of you