so yeah basically in ww1 and 2 those 2 armys didnt fuck around an won those wars
now why do both these army fuckaround now
like in Vietnam, and tho korean war. and why the fuck is the Australian army in Egypt as well .and why didn't they deal with both Hamas and ISIS and who ever else that was causing trouble, o wait it was that shitty organisation called the UN short for useless
UN stop a genocide in the Congo.
UN: we are busy cleaning up land mines
just use a grenade and wipe most of them out
UN: no it needs to be done slowly
no too late you fucked up there all dead
UN: we will start a charity for the survivors
no you can't there all dead
UN:[hangs up phone]
idiots
Americans and Australians love to fight so when their hands are tied and they aren't allowed to fight then you have problems.
The nature of certain conflicts makes it politically to costly to go full scale in warfare either for external or internal reasons. Futhermore, the UNITED STATES and Australia have a keen interest in keeping trade cheap and easy so they often work together in military conflicts.
how do we fix this shit?
No way to fix it.
t. international lawfag
go on
What do you want it to do?
The issue is that for it to be effective governments must give up some of their sovereignty and for that to happen the people of those countries must feel their is much greater benefit to giving up their sovereignty rather than keeping it in this place.
it's very simple. UNSC is always paralyzed on important questions because of the power of the veto. (which was originally americans' idea, until they started regretting it)
of course, that isn't the only problem. For instance Kelsen in Peace through Law argues that the fact that there is no compulsory jurisdiction for resolving international disputes is the main reason for the complete ineffectiveness of the organization (not the veto power)
thus, for instance, if upon joining the organization all members had to agree to have a court adjudicate disputes between them (ie compulsory jurisdiction), and agree to abide by the decisions of the court, then all problems in the world could be resolved by an international judiciary.
Americans, again, were all for this sort of approach, and initially joined the ICJ. Until the Nicaragua judgement basically said that US violated international law, at which point they left ICJ instead of obeying its judgement in a bitch fit
in my view, the only solution is another huge war. the system is too corrupt and impossible to reform due to UNSC veto power being hugely influential
Wars against actual armies that stand and fight is different than trying to stamp out guerrillas and insurgents who hide in civilian populations when they're not operating. Your only option to get rid of them is indiscriminate bombing, but you already know how well that goes over with the international community and the media. If ISIS actually fielded an army and sent it against Russia or the US they'd get steamrolled in like an hour. 2 hours tops. So instead they just operate in independent cells, city to city, base to base, hitting and then running away. Threat from drones and bombers means they can't have any too-permanent base of operations.
In a way, the efficacy of the modern military is defeating itself because the hopelessly outmatched won't ever give them the fight they are designed to win.
Is there any way in which Hobbes ISN'T right about this particular issue? How is there any way for international relations to not be a war of all against all?
What's wrong for it?
Since maintaining world peace is its principal objective, and there hasn't been any big war for seventy years, I would say that it is doing ok. Of course there are other reasons for the lack of a war, but it hasn't failed in its principal objective. Yeah, there are genocides and humanitarian disasters across the third world: so, there always were. UN peace keeping missions do have their shitshows but there have been successful ones, there are some highly necessary ones too like the ones keeping the Israelis and the Arabs from directly touching each other in parts of the Middle East, and from my knowledge some of the African ones have been successful. It isn't like US "spreading democracy" ones in Iraq or Afghanistan are exactly brilliant successes either...
Sure naturally the big Five on the security council naturally can't agree on things like Syria, but that isn't the fault of the UN, if there wasn't the UN the chaos would be far greater there.
The UN isn't a saint and it is probably ineffective, with plenty of corruption and indecisiveness, but some of these are natural due to the fact that it is an intergovernmental organization and so naturally it has to rely on its states, and generally it provides an important role for providing for a world diplomatic forum and providing some institutions of global government that nations on their own couldn't do. Just looking at Rwanda or Sbrenica doesn't show the entirety of what the UN does.
the philosophical backgrdound to the problem is actually a bit more complicated than that. although, yes, hobbes is essentially right (although he wrote before nationalism was a thing, which speaks to how far-sighted he was)
it's basically neo-hegelianism + darwinism. what i mean is that, the whole Hegelian dialectic stuff (thesis + antithesis ->synthesis) combined with survival of the fittest, which by the way was really popular back in the day, made governments never search for a compromise, unless it was absolutely impossible to avoid the issue. simply put, the idea is that, if a state shows any sign of weakness, that state will be eaten, therefore, that state must eat or else it'll be eaten ourselves.
keep in mind all these ideas were being injected into international law during its forming stages - the first dedicated work on the subject was written by grotius in 1600s, so it's a very very young field.
that's why even mentioning the tiniest most obvious violations of international law (ie Israel's occupied territories shenanigans) is met with such aggression by the US and its allies.
>Since maintaining world peace is its principal objective, and there hasn't been any big war for seventy years, I would say that it is doing ok.
I would argue that nukes, rather than the UN, led to world """peace""" we arr witnessing
probably because both world war were won by someone else and when its up to the eternal anglo to actually fight then you start having problems
>Slavmonkeys actually believe that wars are won by the side with the highest death toll
>bongs shit their pants at the sight of the first stalhelm and evacuate europe because its teatime
cant fight wont fight goodnight
This, so much of this. It is a bit tilting, seeing all those posts about how the UN and EU are preventing conflict "for seventy years", while completely ignoring the fact that every greater power has the tools to obliterate the other in a blink of an eye.
Here, look, we wanted to have a good tussle with Jerry OK? But there were thousands of retreating and surrendered Frenchmen between us and them. You can't blame us for making a temporary tactical retreat to get our bearings.
"Of course, there are other reasons for the lack of a war"
can you not even read two sentences of my post?
The point is that you can't call the UN a failure because it has one goal, and it hasn't failed in that goal.
french surrendered after you decided to leg it
perfidious bongshit
Would you take a look at my thread and give me some ideas?
Read "Peace through law" by Kelsen. It's a short book and I heard Kelsen is very popular in Latin America, so I'm sure you will find a good translation.
It talks about a similar problem that you are interested in. His conclusion is that, because a world government is not really possible, a world court should resolve all disputes between states to prevent further wars. I think it could be related to your thesis.
I've read It already and it's the basis of my work (the "theoretical basis", as we call it)
>Your only option to get rid of them is indiscriminate bombing,
Yeah, it worked so well for the Soviets in Afghanistan or the KMT in China.
>Vietnam kicks the Khmer Rouges ass after they (the Khmer) chimp out and lob mortars onto Vietnamese villages
>Vietnam installs a communist puppet in devastated Cambodia
>Despite US protests, UN allows the communist to stay in power as long as the puppet promises that Cambodia can have democratic elections.
>Election time. People don't want another communist in power after the last one tried to solve the whole class problem by killing off anyone who even /looked/ like they had more than two brain cells to rub together (if everyone's a peasant farmer, then everyone's equal!).
>Despite the communist government fucking around with votes, they still lose
>Elected guy can't assume power. The puppet won't leave office.
>UN hears this and tells him to "get out, pwetty pwease".
>Puppet says "make me".
>UN doesn't do shit. Communist lad stays to this day and Cambodian history remains as depressing as ever as the government becomes horribly corrupt and exploitive.
The good for nothing UN can die in a fire for all I care and for what they allowed to happen to my Cambodia.
>your pony doll prevents the boogieman from disturbing your sleep
>you never encounter the boogieman
>your little pony works
Thats the crux of the problem with the UN. Its effect on war isnt proven but its consuming trillions of extra resources that contributing countries might spend for themselves. Additionally corruption has funneled those resources to corporations and frankly evil regimes. The only certain thing is that the UN is a glorified PR gimmick for nations
Btw this is how its divided
1. Introduction
2. The Protection of Human Rights by the UN Security Council
* Considerations about the Security Council
* Evolution of the Security Council practices in protection of Human Rights
* WW2
* Cold War
* End of the Cold War
* Today
3.Practice of Judicial Review of the Security Council's Decisions by the International Court of Justice
* Preliminary considerations about the ICJ
* The evolution of the Practice:
* Bosnia
* Lockerbie
4. Future Perspectives
* Further developments on Kelsen’s idea of an obligatory jurisdiction of the ICJ to include the Security Council