Watch the video of the Democrats on Iraq

[Campy]

I think that it gets back to what dave_b stated earlier: Does the U.S. Congress need to ratify any changes to existing treaties? If so, then wouldn't they need to ratify each resolution passed by the UN since it is a modification to the "treaty" originally ratified by Congress?

My Poli Sci prof believes that their recommendations are to be followed because the Charter requires it, while the Charter itself is unchanged. Granted, I know that my Poli Sci prof isn't the be all end all, but that's the take-away message I got, and it made sense to me. Whether it's his opinion or a generally accepted reality, I don't know.

 

Also, how are you going to distinguish between domestic and international issues? Take the gun example I proposed. You originally stated that it is a domestic issue. The UN would make a case that US guns are being used in other countries, thereby making it an international issue. We use foreign guns here (hell, I own several). If Chinese guns were banned from private ownership by the UN, do I have to give up my MAK-9?

506849[/snapback]

As members of the UN, we agreed via ratification of the Charter to follow UN recommendations/resolutions. As a member of the Security Council, I'd imagine that we'd exercise our veto on your specific example, but as far as the overall point you're making, I just don't know the answer. I really don't.

[KRC]

My Poli Sci prof believes that their recommendations are to be followed because the Charter requires it, while the Charter itself is unchanged.  Granted, I know that my Poli Sci prof isn't the be all end all, but that's the take-away message I got, and it made sense to me.  Whether it's his opinion or a generally accepted reality, I don't know.

 

As members of the UN, we agreed via ratification of the Charter to follow UN recommendations/resolutions.  As a member of the Security Council, I'd imagine that we'd exercise our veto on your specific example, but as far as the overall point you're making, I just don't know the answer.  I really don't.

506879[/snapback]

 

The problem arises in the fact that we may NOT have a veto vote. To use my gun example, this would come out of the GA, not the SC. Therefore, we can abstain from voting or vote no, but we cannot block the vote, ala veto.

[Campy]

The problem arises in the fact that we may NOT have a veto vote. To use my gun example, this would come out of the GA, not the SC. Therefore, we can abstain from voting or vote no, but we cannot block the vote, ala veto.

507093[/snapback]

And that puts me even farther away from having an anwer! I still believe (not know, only believe) that your specific example would be considered an essentially domestic issue (I'll paste the relevant verbage at the bottom), but I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to what your basic argument is. Hell, I can't even fake it.

 

I'm a fan of the IDEALS of the UN, and I think most other people are too. Things like conflict resolution, curbing aggression, protecting basic human rights, etc, are important after all.

 

As far as the UN's actions to try to achieve those ideals, I'm not so much of a fan.

 

 

Here's Chapter 1, Article II, No. 7 - the "domestic issue" verbage:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

[Taro T]

And that puts me even farther away from having an anwer!  I still believe (not know, only believe) that your specific example would be considered an essentially domestic issue (I'll paste the relevant verbage at the bottom), but I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to what your basic argument is.  Hell, I can't even fake it.

 

I'm a fan of the IDEALS of the UN, and I think most other people are too.  Things like conflict resolution, curbing aggression, protecting basic human rights, etc, are important after all. 

 

As far as the UN's actions to try to achieve those ideals, I'm not so much of a fan.

Here's Chapter 1, Article II, No. 7 - the "domestic issue" verbage:

507211[/snapback]

Campy, I went back through the UN Charter again and "upon further review" do not believe that the US has an obligation to absolutely follow any "recommendations" of the GA.

 

Article 2, Principle 5 states:

 

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

 

The only place where "actions" are referred to is in dealing with issues before the Security Council (Articles 25, 36-42). Since the "recommendations" of the GA are NOT actions I do not see where under KRC's hypothetical "Chinese guns are now illegal" would be enforceable against the US (or any other member state for that matter). I come to the conclusion that GA recommendations are not actions because the SC can make recommendations and/or take actions. Actions and recommendations are specifically referred to separately for the SC.

 

Because the US has it's veto on the SC, I don't see much possibility of overly ambitious busybodies being able to jerk the US around too much, but the possibility definitely is there. As a side note, because the SC CAN essentially declare war or impose significant economic sanctions on whomever it wants, provided it gets 9 votes and no vetos, I would never want the US to unilaterally withdraw from the UN. I see far too real a possibility that in the future some combination of the French, Chinese, and Russians would find some reason to declare war or sanctions on the US and drag the rest of the world with them.

 

Also, it appears that the UN Charter was amended on at least 3 occasions. Do you by any chance have any information regarding whether the US Senate re-ratified the Charter after any / all of the amendments? I have no information regarding that and was curious.

[Campy]

Also, it appears that the UN Charter was amended on at least 3 occasions.  Do you by any chance have any information regarding whether the US Senate re-ratified the Charter after any / all of the amendments?  I have no information regarding that and was curious.

507237[/snapback]

That's some good analysis in your post dave.

 

I was under the impression that the changes were ratified. I may not be looking in the right spot (ie, the right web pages) - I'm not able to confirm one way or the other.

 

FWIW, I'm not intentionally blowing you (or Ken) off, but as you know, we're just a couple minutes away from the Boston game, so I probably won't be on TSW the rest of the evening. Depending on Mrs Campy's plans for us before the Bills game (don't get me wrong, I wear the pants in the family... when she lets me. ), I'll see if I can come up with an answer to the ratification question in the AM - provided no one else has been able to confirm or deny before then. I'd like to know the answer to that too.

[Campy]

I did find in one of text books that the US did ratify Chapter 1, Article II, the text of the relevant passages follow:

 

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

 

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

While it may not speak to the specifics regarding resolutions, it does seem to indicate that the virtually unilateral actions of the US in invading Iraq were illegal. All in all, a moot point, since we are there.

 

I guess the bigger concern right now should be what we do while we're there, and making sure that it's done before we leave, my posts of the other day notwithstanding.

[Taro T]

I did find in one of text books that the US did ratify Chapter 1, Article II, the text of the relevant passages follow:

While it may not speak to the specifics regarding resolutions, it does seem to indicate that the virtually unilateral actions of the US in invading Iraq were illegal.  All in all, a moot point, since we are there.

 

I guess the bigger concern right now should be what we do while we're there, and making sure that it's done before we leave, my posts of the other day notwithstanding.

507611[/snapback]

As to your 1st point, my guess is that that is an issue that was argued here long before I started posting on this board, namely, was the US led invasion of Iraq a dispute between the US and Iraq or was it an enforcement of the 18 or so SC resolutions that Iraq was violating. My opinion is that it was the latter and I assume from your other posts that your view is it was the former. My guess is that one or both of us will have carpal-tunnel before we reach an agreement and as you mention, the point is moot.

 

I agree with your other point about what the current concern should be. I tend to agree generally with BiB's and SnR's posts regarding Iraq, Mickey's protests that nothing specific is being stated at any level notwithstanding.