Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Thought: Binding?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Thought: Binding?

    Hello

    Recently, I took an introductory course on the International Law.

    I had read through my textbook (I'm a real bookworm!), and I found an interesting note: Are UN resolutions under either General Assembly or Security Council binding or nonbinding? Just a question thrown on this discussion board.

    The answers are twofold: One can consider U.N. resolutions binding, because it is based on general principles of International Law (a term that defines the States universially adapted certain practices and customs, though, some of them are unwritten rules), and thus considered a source of international law. On the other hand, some argue it's not binding for the very reason UN was chartered to be.

    The UN charter does make an interesting mention: the resolutions are considered recommendations, not necessarily binding, and therefore cannot be considered such source of international law.

    I could go on, but I'm stopping because I'm typing in a hurry....

    Just food for a thought or two!

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    Law or no law - pre-emptive action is aggression. And aggression is the first sympton of a bully boy.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was taught that when someone crossed the line and threatened you, action was justified. You might be into letting people hit you first, but I'm not.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        In RealPolitik, resolutions or international laws are REALLY binding when somebody is:

        1) Willing to enforce them.
        2) Has the power to enforce them.

        Whether a text of law says this or that is binding is irrelevant if in reality nobody cares.

        That's what happen to most UN resolutions, in any case. They get ignored.

        Interestingly enough, although the U.S. now stresses the importance of having binding resolutions to save the credibility of the U.N., there was a time when the U.S. did not make any link between credibility / binding resolutions. Take for example the few resolutions in favor of Palestine voted by the General Assembly. Although they were never applied, Washington never said that this was a proof of the lack of credibility of the UN

        Comment


        • #5
          Binding when it suits the US.

          Comment


          • #6
            Smoking again I see Marko.........
            There is only one tactial principal which is not subject to change, That is to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
            - General George S. Patton, Jr

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dog 1
              Smoking again I see Marko.........
              You bet...Moroccan Black...nice ****.

              Comment


              • #8
                Nice!!!
                There is only one tactial principal which is not subject to change, That is to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
                - General George S. Patton, Jr

                Comment


                • #9
                  Do you get black in the States or just bush (not george) or both ?

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X