Talk:Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Discussion of the UN charter

Joelenne Revak CQ # 5

My question is from the UN Charter as well as the class discussion on 4/13/07 with regard to Hugo Grotius ‘War and Peace. Starting with the point Grotius makes, for a country to declare war, the country declaring war must state that the other country is no longer acting rationally or able to negotiate terms in a peaceful manner. The UN Charter creates the same scenario in article 33, chapter 6 where it states that any parties in a dispute and likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security must first seek solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and settlement. It seems as though both are stating there must be viable reason and evidence that a country can declare war in the way in which war should be acted in a civil manner.

While the circumstances would seem that in Grotius’ point when a country does not act under certain procedures in a time of war, the later consequences would be of other countries not continuing to trade with the first country or make treaties, as there is a lack of trust. The other countries do not see a reason to take the first country for face value as they do not act in a certain way during war, what would stop them in a time of peace from violating treaties. The UN Charter goes on after article 33 to state in article 42 chapter 7 that should the UN consider peace measures to be inadequate, it may take action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security and may include blockades by forces of UN members. Sounds like a hefty threat.

My question remains, even with the threats, the U.S. declared war on Iraq claiming Iraq was responsible for the missile attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001. It would seem like a valid claim to say that Iraq was no longer acting rationally or up for peaceful negotiation. However, later it was proven Iraq was not responsible for the September 11 attacks, and yet the U.S. was not punished in any way for not having viable evidence to declare war. The UN threat in the Charter has still not taken effect, and other countries are still trading with the U.S. How can this be? Are we stating as a world that a country with money and power has no limits by which they must behave? It has been 50 years since the rise and fall of both Hitler and Stalin, yet we have learned little as a human race that limitless power does not result in a better end. I’m not comparing Bush to Hitler; that may be a later argument. My question is simply how would the global society actually prepare to stop another tyrannical leader had one begun to rise in power. It seems with empty threats the leader would be able to rise quite well and create massive genocide along the way.

Joelenne Revak CQ# 6

My question is again from the UN Charter as well as the discussion in class on 4/10/07. Article II of the UN Charter states that in “good faith,” the obligations of the Charter shall be followed by each member. Article VI states that a member of the UN whom has persistently violated the principles contained in the present charter may be expelled from the organization upon recommendation of the Security Council. This expulsion was pointed out in class, does not apply to the five permanent members of the Charter.

The five permanent members were created with the Charter at the end of WWII, as justly being the victorious countries after the war’s end. The U.S. as part of the five members went forward with a noble cause to rebuild both Germany and Japan so as to limit the causes for another world war. The UN was created as a place to discuss international peace and suggestions for progress and technology in trade in the future. A large part of the Charter discusses what should happen in the case of countries violating the peace. There are no consequences for the five permanent members if they violate international peace. As history shows us, there seems to be little or no consequence for smaller countries not a part of the permanent membership if they violate the peace as well. Take Yugoslavia as Professor Downard pointed out in class. The fear of the UN actually having the power to execute the threats in the Charter would require one large military power. This is understood as a terrible thing; take a tyrannical leader gaining power over the UN.

My question is why would giving actual power to the UN really be such a terrible thing? If an amendment was made to the UN Charter declaring there will be always head of say five members that can be voted as acting top Security Council and must be re-voted at each meeting, without ever allowing one ruling person, the supposed tyrannical leader would never gain the power needed to give orders to a large military. As well as the example of the European Union in comparison to the U.S., the European Union is compiled of many smaller military forces, and the likelihood of all of the countries in the Union together deciding to join military forces and go to war is extremely slim. Where as with the U.S. there is only one large military force, and can easily determine it will go to war, especially knowing there will be no consequences from the UN or other countries as far as trade. Why not fashion the UN after the European Union? Should we really be more fearful of a union with many nations all with small military powers together given more power, when at the same time each nation has a lot to say about going to war or not and a decision is less likely to be made; or look at what has happened where large powerful nations already have large military force and can do what they please without rules or regulations because there is no one large enough to stop them?