law without force is pious blather. there is no real international law simply because there is no 'world army'.

there are international agreements that appear to be law, simply because the parties involved see their personal interest served by voluntary compliance.

there are international sanctions simply because ad hoc groups of nations see their interest served by enforcing these sanctions.

the u. n. is very useful, but a long way from a world government, or even a world parliament. it won't get better any time soon.

"Can the United Nations be reformed?" I think the question is answered well by implication:
"Other nations will have to insist, collectively, on the need to provide security for all and not just for the Permanent Five, as they see fit." Historically, this has never happened - nor is it likely. The current charters held by certain sovereign states or bodies make it a continued pipers dream. " All the nations (other than the Permanent Five) …" simply won't 'acquiesce in the dilution' of their own charter.

The Charter of the U.N. can honestly lend itself only to one of diplomacy - where international law is necessarily fragile, with agreements to be made in areas of the scientific, technical or commercial. Here also, they will only be agreements in principle. There is hardly a sovereign power who will relinquish its right in defending the security of its citizenry and state - even if a threat is one of mere perception.

There is real international law. It is very fragile and undoubtedly imperfect. It can be easily broken just like national laws.

States are reluctant to break international law because it would imply complete unpredictability in international affairs.

It is human nature that we seek predictability in everything, including international affairs.

Stephen Cheleda

The central message of this article is

“don’t blame the UN when things go pear-shaped because it is only a ‘company secretary’ who carry out the instructions of the ‘CEOs’. It was only following orders”. Sounds familiar…

Oh no, it is more than that…

“The United Nations is the custodian, the upholder, of International Law. It is not the enforcer of that law.”

How can it uphold if it doesn’t enforce? By talking? What if no-one is listening?

I think the author means the UN makes moral pronouncements on international law. And that is not useless at all, but it is definitely limited.

UN: “Pol Pot, we condemn what you are doing. The genocide must stop now”.

Pol Pot – “we aren’t killing anyone. It’s an internal security issue & we are restoring order as best as possible. Now piss off”.

Result: 2 mill dead.

UN: it’s not our fault. Member states couldn’t agree on action.

World civilian – so how can we prevent the Darfurs/Rwandas/Congos/Saddams in future?

Stephen Cheleda: “Other nations will have to insist, collectively, on the need to provide security for all and not just for the Permanent Five, as they see fit. All the nations (other than the Permanent Five) may just be able to do that.”

Yes, other countries do need to speak up for those who are getting kicked in the teeth. But while their own countries are a mess, they will take little interest in what’s going on elsewhere, unless to divert attention from what’s happening at home.

My 2 bobs: as the world becomes more & more interconnected (due to eg better communications / trade / transport), democracies will slowly but surely spring up & they will realize that what goes on elsewhere can end up affecting them. That war is not in anyone’s interests. It’s an expensive past-time, in terms of money - as the US has recently found out - $3 trill ($25 000 per person in the US) & in terms of power – as Saddam found out.

That’s when the UN will be really effective.

No one can "uphold" any law if they cannot enforce it.

The vast majority of the members of the U.N. are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes that tolerate little or no degree of democratic representative processes whatsoever in their own countries. Thus we witness the nauseating spectacle of one-party dictatorships (usually Socialist or Theocratic) sitting on -- and even sometimes chairing -- the United Nation's panels on "human rights". This is like a real world version of "Alice in Wonderland". It is not only pathetic, it is tragic and dangerous.

We need an entirely new United Nations organization . . . . a "League of Democratic Nations" that consist ONLY of those states which demonstrate that they can meet, at the very least, a reasonable minimal standard of domestic democratic liberties that is agreed on by all members, in the new League's charter. That League can then organize its own military force, if the member states see fit, to defend the common democratic values held by ALL members of the League.

Dear KGB and Sonofeire,

The Security Council can enforce international law, provided all the Permanent Members can agree. This only happened once, when the Iraqi army was expelled from Kuwait. Even then, the forces were commanded by the US and not by the UN.

Yes, on security issues, the Permanent Members have a strangle hold on the UN. Take for example the Darfur region of Sudan. China (who has a veto on the Security Council) opposes any meaningful solution to the humanitarian crisis because it has considerable investment in that country.

But, remeber the Berlin Wall. It was an abomination,- yet it came down. Similarly, the way the Permanent Members abuse the UN and interprete international law to their own advantage, is an abomination.

When there are sufficient number of people like you who will demand that their government revise the way the UN is used, then there will be changes.

Stephen J. Cheleda