Yes. Just like the UN truly did go to war in Korea. Yet the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization.The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty. — Tzeentch
... the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization. — ssu
Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states. — ssu
Absolutely - that's why I used the word superficiallySuperficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo
The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.I was just pointing out a blatant similarity. — David Mo
Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo
Ukraine? — ssu
Australia, Bélgica, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Brasil, Canadá, Checoslovaquia, Costa Rica, Dinamarca, República Dominicana, Ecuador, Estados Unidos, Filipinas, Francia, Guatemala, Haití, Holanda, Islandia, Liberia, Luxemburgo, Nueva Zelandia, Nicaragua, Noruega, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Polonia, Suecia, Sudáfrica, la Unión Soviética, Ucrania, Uruguay y Venezuela. — Embajada de Israel en la República Dominicana.
Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority. — Tzeentch
Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place? — ssu
n your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that. — EricH
But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. — EricH
An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. — David Mo
The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words. — David Mo
What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo
Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years agobased on legendswould turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo
Show me where in the US Constitution the Congress forfeits it's power to the UN? I don't think you find it there. Not there in even in the case of Finland, which is a member of the EU, it's still quite clear too. From the Finnish Constitution:When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. — Tzeentch
Chapter 1 - Fundamental provisions
Section 1 -The Constitution
Finland is a sovereign republic.
The constitution of Finland is established in this constitutional act. The constitution shall guarantee the inviolability of human dignity and the freedom and rights of the individual and promote justice in society.
Finland participates in international co-operation for the protection of peace and human rights and for the development of society. Finland is a Member State of the European Union (1112/2011, entry into force 1.3.2012).
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
"The defence of state sovereignty, by even its strongest supporters, does not include any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its own people. [...] It is acknowledged that sovereignty implies a dual responsibility. Externally - to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all people within the state. In international human rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing this dual responsibility."
"The Charter of the UN is itself an example of an international obligation voluntarily accepted by member states. On one hand, in granting membership of the UN, the international community welcomes the signatory state as a responsible member of the community of nations. On the other hand, the state itself, in signing the Charter, accepts the responsibilities of membership flowing from that signature. There is no transfer or dilution of state sovereignty. But there is a necessary re-characterization involved: from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties."
"Secondly, the responsibility to protect acknowledges that the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the state concerned, and it is only if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfill this responsibility, or is itself the perpetrator, that it becomes the responsibility of the international community to act in its place."
Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel.In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. — Tzeentch
I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce across borders.If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. — Tzeentch
Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel. — ssu
I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce. — ssu
Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'. — ssu
You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:
"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."
"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."
"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."
"The State shall be open for white immigration."
Under "Connection to white people", article 6:
"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."
Under "White people settlement", article 7:
"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."
Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.
There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? — BitconnectCarlos
If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you? — BitconnectCarlos
If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.
How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?
What gives any nation authority or legitimacy? — schopenhauer1
You are wrong. The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. After that, the Jewish people were divided among several countries mostly under foreign occupation. When Rome occupied Palestine, the two main kingdoms were Judah and Israel.Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome. — EricH
Many times it is not an easy question. Other times it is clear, at least in a negative way. Not by means of war. Not appealing to mythical claims. Not because of some alleged 2,000-year-old right. If these perverse foundations of law became widespread, there would be oppression, chaos and universal violence. As in fact already happens in Palestine.But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? — EricH
All ethnic states are established to the detriment of minorities. In the case of Israel there are specific laws and practices against native Palestinians: citizenship, land ownership, right of return, mixed marriages, etc. Amnesty International regularly reports on massive violations of basic rights. That is why Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu called Israel a new form of apartheid. He knew well what he was talking about.This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.