Israel has recently come under fire from the United Nations for their failure to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If Israel doesn't want to abide by the UN's ruling, then why did they give up part of their own sovereignty to be part of the United Nations? John Locke explains this in his essay The Treatises of Government. His thesis basically is that states are "willing to joyn in Society with other who are already united, or have a mind to united for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Estates." Israel like other members of the UN, joined for security reasons. But in order for the UN to be successful in its effort to avoid conflicts and promote peace, it must first establish law, second be an indifferent judge of the law disregarding passion and revenge, and third it must be able to enforce the law and support the sentence when right.
The United Nations established the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to protect the world from possible nuclear war. It requires nuclear powers to work toward disarmament while forbidding non-nuclear countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel remains the only country in the Middle East that has not signed onto the treaty, which in turn has caused Egypt to lead the effort to encourage Israel to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect their nuclear facilities. Although the law of nature is clear in this case, according to Locke, Israel won't "apt to allow of it as Law binding to them in the application of it to their particular case."
Secondly, the United Nations must be an indifferent and unbiased judge, "with authority to determine all indifference according to the established law." I find the UN falls short on this issue in this area. Unfortunately for the UN, the United States is a biased "indifferent judge" when it comes to the power of the United Nations. Because the US holds so much clout, we have managed to lead off direct criticism of Israel at the last treaty review conference in 1995. But according to Locke, the UN must "determine all differences according to the established law." According to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel is in direct conflict with the established law.
Thirdly, the UN must have the power to enforce the law. I believe this is the most important of the 3 for without the power to enforce, the other 2 are meaningless.
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But...
this matter and it is against the development of nuclear weapons. Yet, the U.S. contradicts
This particular paper is extremely helpful when looking for significant for finding research of the most relevance i.e. significant names, polices and events. The paper is extremely helpful and great for supporting arguments. This paper lead me to more credible and useful The UN's objective is to protect the fundamental UN Charter. The majority of the information found on the website is media and news coverage of the UN meetings recapping the leaders comments and highlighting important discussions. Other things found on the website are the UN Charter,The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc...
...ainst with forty one abstentions – the General Assembly accorded Palestine non-member Observer State status in the United Nations (General Assembly GA/11317). This is a great thing to happen to the Palestine case because it will help them achieve what they need. In order to pass the vote two thirds of the countries have to vote towards statehood and the vote was just barely over the amount needed. It is great that all those years of being so persistent and pushing is finally paying off and that they will get their state. However the Israeli ambassador wants to solve the conflicts with the Palestinians without help from the United Nations, which may push back the chances of having a resolution reached.
The Korean peninsula has gradually been attracting international attention because of North Korea’s refusal of access for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection of its nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed on July 1, 1968 by USA, USSR and UK. Subsequently, the NPT was opened for signature by other countries and enacted on March 5, 1970. Till date, except India, Pakistan and Israel, all the other 189 member-countries of the UN have signed it. However, North Korea withdrew from the treaty on April 10, 2003. (Jayaprakash) After the collapse of USSR, independent post-Soviet countries started to abandon their nuclear weapon capabilities and decided to cooperate with the international nuclear disarma...
The United Nations charter prescribes conditions to be met by states when it comes to military interventions. As stated in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.
The history of the US’s relationship with the UN is complex, seeming to vacillate between warm cooperation and abject disdain as the national interests of the US and the rest of the world, and the short- and long-term interests of the US itself, align or oppose each other. The UN was originally the vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt and the product of US State Department planning and diplomacy. It was designed to forward the national interests of its strongest members, the P-5, to reflect and channel the geopolitical power structure rather than twist it into an unnatural and unsustainable hierarchy of weak nations trying to dominate strong. Because the Charter is based in a realist view of the world, during the Cold War, when the national interests of the two world powers diverged, the UN was paralyzed to deal with any of the world’s conflicts. When the Cold War ended it gave rise to the first war that should have been authorized by the Security Council—the Persian Gulf War from later 1990 to early 1991. Many hoped for a “new world order” after the success of the Gulf War, but the interests of the US and the rest of the world, primarily the rest of the members of the Security Council, soon divided again. Today, the world is still struggling to cope with the blow dealt to the UN by the US’s use of force in Iraq, including the US, which has not even begun to feel the long-term negative effects of its unilateralism. However, the war in Iraq could have been less detrimental to the UN and the US in particular, and by extension to the rest of the world, if the US had argued that it was acting to uphold resolution 1441 under the authorization of the Security Cou...
In his article “Palestine Goes to the UN,” Khaled Elgindy draws up a set of cause-consequence scenarios for Palestine’s latest attempt at creating a state. The UN bid, which “marks a dramatic shift in the Palestinians’ approach to the conflict with Israel,” is set to be brought to the table in the UN General Assembly in September of 2011 (since that date has already passed, it will be assumed that we are still in the period prior to it for the purposes of the paper). Following Elgindy’s logic, the arguments of other authors, and the assumptions of the theories on international relations, I will demonstrate how the UN option will most likely fail, but without discounting the positive effect a ‘failure’ can have on the negotiation process.
...ractices of other branches of power that the UN cannot grasp upon. In contrast, the virtues of the UN remain undeniably consistent throughout history, but the powers and legislative action the organization fluctuates due to the constant uprising of conflict. However, throughout the history of the 20th century and post Cold – War conflict, the organization's extensiveness has increased, such through the actions of the Non-proliferation treaty of nuclear weapons, and the ongoing tasks of UN Peacekeeping missions. These actions reflected upon the UN fiasco of the Cold War, demonstrate the emerging “politico-economic” society, by laying a prodigious impact of the world via its numerous stretches of the organization.
&., 2005, p. 67) , the United States Congress refused to cooperate with America joining the League and viewed Woodrow Wilsons idea of the League and his foreign policy as too ‘ideational’. With the absence of the US rendering the League without access to Americas forceful military and economic power- which left the Covenants ability stated within Article 16 to “institute economic or military sanctions against a recalcitrant state” (Orjinta, 2010, p. 10) considerably weaker- German, Japanese and Italian dictatorships rejected the sovereignty of the League (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 86). Yet although it can be agreed the League failed in regards to its main purpose of maintaining peace and security, it did however provide a desire among states for an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO) to ‘recognise that it is in their [governments] national interests to obtain multilateral agreements and pursue actions to deal with threats, challenges, or problems that cannot be dealt with effectively at the unilateral level’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 79). From this perspective, the League of Nations opened up a place for the United Nations to thus continue on a path of maintaining peace in an improved and effective manner. It is true that the UN Charter commandeered elements of the Leagues
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
...ll its own personal goals. Personal agendas will perhaps always trump UN nation building but the more aware the UN is of this perhaps the more it will be able to use this in some way to force cooperation in the Security Council.
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in International law.
Tanzi, Attila., Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the United Nations, EJIL, 6, (1995) 539-572.
The foundation and formation of UN is brought to light here. He shows us how the UN's creators fancied a world organization that would guard the interests of queen’s imperial empire. He goes further enlightening us on how this imperial objective was resolutely changed by the post-war reassertion of national reign. It was also influenced by unforeseen rise of India and other one-time colonial powers like Germany. In this book, there are a number of icons who greatly influenced the UN’s mission. People like Jan Smuts from South Africa, who saw the need to protect the old imperial and racial order; Raphael Lemkin and Joseph Schechtman who happened to be Jewish elites, disagreed over how the UN should fight genocide and other inhuman oppressive practices. India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru helped transform the UN from a tool of royal empire into an assembly for terminating it.