Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (176455)	11/30/2005 9:38:47 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Again we were talking about how the UNSC works as far as going to war. Not about which nation supported which aggressor. Yes?? I believe I'm been very consistent and exhaustive about the process and language used to lift prohibitions against use of military force by one nation against another. The UN role is NOT to directly authorize use of military force. It should never have that power, in my opinion, because its leadership is neither elected by, nor directly accountable to, the people of this planet. Its leadership consists of leaders elected by representatives of various governments, of whom many ARE ALSO not elected, nor politically accountable to their citizens. What the UNSC's role should remain to be is a forum for resolving conflicts and disputes between nation/states. And when a nation/state grievously violates the UN charter, the UNSC should defer to the perspectives of its members in carrying out the spirit and principles embodied in the UN Charter, by "all necessary means" when necessary. I consider the UN to be a referee and arbitration organizations, establishing rules of international conduct, but defering to members states when it comes to actually enforcing violations. The UNSC should have the power to compel members to use military force, nor have the power to directly declare war. Thus, members states should rely upon their internal legislative processes when it comes to authorizations to use force. The UN's role should be to regulate the circumstances in which such internal legislation complies, or violates, the UN Charter under Chapter VII. Which is my point about what France and Russia were trying to do. They were attempting to directly empower the UNSC to authorize the use of military force. Were such a resolution submitted and voted upon, it would have been a major, and disturbing, precedent that would have undermined the sovereignty of each member state of the UN. Bottom line, the UN has no business authorizing the use of military force by one state against another. That must remain the jurisdiction of the sovereign government of each member state. The UN's only role is waiving prohibitions against military force as stated in the UN Charter and leaving it to the individual members to decide whether to use military force to uphold UNSC binding resolutions. Hawk