James,
You are already getting into trouble for pointing out the emperors nudity.
You are right of course. There can be no law without dominion, and it is very unlikely that the Australian electors would give this fairytale dominion, and even less likely that the kleptocrats who run the majority of countries in the world would agree.
Nonetheless the previous posts demonstrate brilliantly that 'There is none so blind as he who will not see.'

An excellent article. One aspect of international law is its profoundly anti-democratic nature. The Australian people have never recognised the United Nations in our Constitution, and have never delgated to the United Nations any power to make laws binding on them. Federal politicians have the limited powers assigned to them in the Constitution , but have no authority to delegate these powers to any other entity.

Another problem with international law is its retrospective nature. It needs to be remembered that the Nazis tried at Nuremberg were tried under international law that did not exist at the time they committed their crimes, and that Hitler had been very careful to ensure that everything they did was legal under german law. It would have been much better for the Nazis to have just been put up against a wall and shot.

The US has done, and continues to do it's best to undermine both the value of international law and the place of the UN in the world community. Organisations and their rules/laws only have the power that the members choose to invest within them.

International law could be of great assistance, but Mr McConvill is probably right that it will not be of any assistance, especially in this case. It matters not whether you have more oil or more military power, as long as the two can strike a balance in perceived best interests. The US has it's agenda in the Middle East and nothing, not even international law, will stand in it's way.

The big problem with this article is that it paints Iran as guilty before they've even gone to court. US propaganda is spouted ad nauseum without any consideration or balance. Maybe Iran realises that the oil will eventually run out, and that having nuclear power might help it survive into the future. At least it is being constructively pro-active on that issue, rather than trying to take over other countries oil provinces to secure it's future.

Well noted, plerdsus, on the loss of sovreignty due to internationalism. One might, however, consider this other plan of mine...

Australia is the best place in the world to store nuclear waste, and spent fuel. It has a stable, unchanging centre, dry and isolated from major centres of population. We can (at a nice cost) take the world's waste and store it safely here. What's more, we can make the return of waste a condition of our selling uranium. We can strive for an international covenant to put all waste in a dump (no, not Adelaide, but perhaps somewhere in South Australia... Woomera?). If Iran truly wanted to have nuclear power production, we could then assess its veracity by stringently controlling the movement of uranium in and out, to stop it being used for violent ends.

Protect the world and make money? Count us in!

"The United Nations should be preparing to strike Iran - in a military sense. That it is not doing so, and that there is every indication it will not do so, once again shows that the UN is useless."

Once again James McConvill starts a piece with a bad idea and things just get worst and worst.

No one least of all the big five want the UN to work effectively. Why would they. The UN can only work as a buffer to hopefully slow things down. James makes the childish mistake to believe that his POV is the correct one and only his can be correct. International law works well only when both parties want it to work. What international law in regards to nukes has Iran broken that Israel hasn't? You see James the only thing that makes laws valid is when they are applied to all. You like other wish to applied them to some but not to others. You want your POV reflected in those laws but not others. Do you want the UN security council to have veto powers or maybe you only want the countries you like to have veto powers? Grow up James.

Here's another fairy tale - that war will solve the problem.

While the intent of the author of this article was to bag the UN, he's inadvertantly demonstrated to us just how dangerous the religious, who he aligns himself with (whether he knows it or not), are.

What am I talking about?

Well firstly, war isn't the answer. I would have though the neocons would have realised this after their mess in Iraq. All we'd be doing is encouraging more angry terrorists and creating yet another breeding ground for them.

So what's the alternative?

Diplomacy - which considering the religious barrier and the arrogance of all religions that they're the one's who are always right - probably isn't possible.

So basically the world is in a lose-lose situation - we're damed if we do and we're damned if we don't...and all because of religious arrogance.

So don't harp on about how bad the UN is or how frivalice international law is. That's not dealing with the core issue at hand, it's just waffle - the same kind of waffle that people like James accuse the UN of doing too much of. How about we...ahhh...well, I guess there is no easy answer. Gee...thanks Christians and Islamists, you idiots will be the end us.

Personally I'm eyeing-off those lush looking oil fields. Who's with me neocons? We'll move in and let Fox News explain it all for us - they're good at inventing boogy-men.