Intressant om FN

[Coldsmith]

http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=211810

En intressant krönika om Kofi Annan och FN. En kort historik för de som inte har läst så mycket. Den vänder upp och ned på sveriges över-romantiserade bild av FN som något fantastiskt och ofelbart.

Sen detta:
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=347747&previousRenderType=2

"Alliance Of Democracies" som skulle vara en mer legitim samling länder.
Vad tror ni?

[Bärs]

Bra artiklar. Det är helt klart att FN:s roll är överspelad på det politiska planet. Hatten av för Bush som gick sin egen väg. :bow:

[backflash]

Är lite lat idag och tar helt enkelt och klistrar in något jag skrivit förut...

"FN är en organisation som innehåller en hel del organ, dessa ger oftast rekommendationer på hur konflikter ska lösas, observer osv, det är oftast inte meningen att det ska bestämma genom aktion utan genom -hmm.. tar nog resten på engelska- reconciliation. The United Nations is still a fairly new organisation -was previously League of Nations, but they were not that old with that name either- which brings up the consequence of that major cases will take considerable time to resolve -due to the amount of actors involved- blablabla and so on. The charters and covenants which have to be ratified by those who want to be bound (and then ratified by others to reach a number so they can come into force) by them should not be broken, some can not be reserved against -such as CAT- but all of them can still be broken without considerable intervention -it is mostly about not losing face in the international playground.

The US didn't give a crap about the charters in the Iraqi case -this is quite vividly discussed by some subsidiary organs- and an ad hoc tribunal could actually be set up since the 'oh you can not bring my soldiers into court martial'idea is general crapness -but that is more humanitarian law. On the other hand, which is vividly argued against without grounds, the war on Afghanistan was in accordance to the Charters since even though the non-violence principle was breached (UN charter 2;4) there is an exception to that principle when it comes to self defense -yes, it is called self defense even though it is not in ones country- after a deciscion from the Security Council (the reason the attack was not immediate) with the support of art. 42.

Changing subject, and giving an example of individual-level [överskattbarhet], in 1979 a woman -Broeks- lost her job and was then subject of discrimination by a law in the Netherlands which in quite rephrased ways stated that she could not get continued employment benefits since she was married at the time of dismissal -this would NOT have been the same scenario if she was a man according to the law. The Netherlands told her that there was no way to it since that was the law, thereby exhausting all local remedies -a must- and then went to the Human Rights Committee (a treaty monitoring body, UN) which spanked the Netherlands quite hard on their bottom with the page open where art. 26 of the ICCPR was. This little spanking lead to that the NL later withdrew this discriminating law -due to the fact that it violated the charter. NO. 172/1984"

glöm inte... FN är ALLA staterna i FN... och de agerar gärna för endast sin egna fördel, jfr gärna Belgien i Rwanda (varför glömde han dem?) och hur Sverige agerar på sin pacifistiska tron -oktober/november 2001 gav Staten för första ggn sitt helhjärtade stöd till en ökad vapenexport, gissa åt vilket håll (svenska freds). I nuläget så är Sudan-läget oförlåtligt, men det är staters suveränitet som sätter sådana stopp, det måste vara klartlagt att det är ..hmm.. folkmord? för att man ska kunna gå in med kraft.