Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
So you're saying it's okay for them to "demand" something, but never enforce it?
"You will put that gun down"
"why?"
"'Cause I said so"
how very useful...
|
In specific response to the Resolution quoted in this thread, as I've written 3-4 times, it was not enforceable. You can't just say 'why not?'. Read the Resolution. There is no enforcement option in the text. 'Why not?', because thats the law.
So, yes, I'm saying its ok to 'demand' something, but not necessarily enforce it. When you steal my pen, and I demand it back... and you don't give it back, is the next (and only) option to punch you in the face? The UN tries to communicate through these statements. If states don't wish to listen, what are you going to do? The UN doesn't invade member-states who don't comply with their resolutions, otherwise they'd have had to invade Israel long ago... that wouldn't be koshur though, would it?
I'm fully on board with a UNSC that has more power, and does more realistic missions. Its up to the P5 to get that done, not the structure of the UN. Its like blaming democracy because opposition parties can't agree on what to do. Its the parties fault, not democracy's.