Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Greatest threat to global stability

governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 7:07:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm thinking about instigating a debate but I thought it would be interesting to get people's ideas first. What country do you think constitutes the greatest threat to global security and stability. We can use a variety of measurements, but I feel that on whole in the last 50 years, the United States has constituted the greatest threat to global security and stability.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 8:01:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Probably the United Nations. I mean, it includes the US :P But is also the source of international law.

When people think "international law" they think about laws against genocide and war crimes. Those are seldom enforced.

What you really should be thinking about is their aid to the institution of governments. For example, according to the UN, any land that extends 2ft above the sea level extends fishing and oil rights 200 miles around it. As a result, governments have massively expanded to claim land that isn't theirs. America was founded on a frontier. Thanks to the UN, no frontiers exist anymore.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 9:58:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 8:01:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Probably the United Nations. I mean, it includes the US :P

So the greatest threat to global stability is an organization with absolutely no military that is charged with promotion of global peace and stability. I'm interested.

But is also the source of international law.

Oh great here we go...

When people think "international law" they think about laws against genocide and war crimes. Those are seldom enforced.

Do you know why they're seldom enforced, or just that they are? The UN requires states to enforce all of the international conventions.

What you really should be thinking about is their aid to the institution of governments. For example, according to the UN, any land that extends 2ft above the sea level extends fishing and oil rights 200 miles around it. As a result, governments have massively expanded to claim land that isn't theirs. America was founded on a frontier. Thanks to the UN, no frontiers exist anymore.


That's actually not according to the UN that's something that Ronald Reagan claimed and the UN and ICJ disputed that interpretation. The actual source of Reagan's interpretation came from the Law of the Seas Treaty, which was written and negotiated by states. The UN is really just a body for states and rarely if ever acts as an agent.

Interesting thoughts though.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 10:17:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 9:58:31 AM, governments_kill wrote:

That's actually not according to the UN that's something that Ronald Reagan claimed and the UN and ICJ disputed that interpretation. The actual source of Reagan's interpretation came from the Law of the Seas Treaty, which was written and negotiated by states. The UN is really just a body for states and rarely if ever acts as an agent.

Interesting thoughts though.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess most countries have ratified it.

What I'm getting at is that the UN recognizes and privileges GOVERNMENTS. Not peoples. Combined with their foreign aid to governments, it creates an artificial incentive to become a government. This is what happens in most of Africa. Groups try to become governments so they can get the privileges that the international community grants them. It causes warring among tribes, and creates an institutionalized group of murders :(
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:05:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 10:17:26 AM, Sieben wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess most countries have ratified it.
Actually ratification isn't quite a uniquely American exercise but there isn't anything in International law that requires ratification for a treaty to go into effect. A state's signature is binding, the ratification process is solely a domestic function, and the US hasn't ratified many treaties that they actually support to the point that it's quite embarrassing sometimes for example we haven't ratified the Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). But all treaties contain a clause that indicates how man states need to sign before a treaty becomes executing and then some of these treaties go into universal applicability regardless of state's signatures after a certain amount of signatories. The US never recognizes those clauses and thinks it has veto power, but that doesn't mean it isn't true in a legal sense.

What I'm getting at is that the UN recognizes and privileges GOVERNMENTS. Not peoples. Combined with their foreign aid to governments, it creates an artificial incentive to become a government. This is what happens in most of Africa. Groups try to become governments so they can get the privileges that the international community grants them. It causes warring among tribes, and creates an institutionalized group of murders :(

I think that what is happening here is a confusion about what the UN is. The UN recognizes governments because it's comprised of governments. To assume that governments accurately represent "people" is an assumption, obviously faulty in my analysis, within democratic theory. That said, there are limits on the rights of states within the UN charter as well as International Law. The charter uses somewhat vague language to recognize some rights of people's within states, but the UNHDR in its three conventions two of which were signed by the United States, it hasn't signed the one for the rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically enumerates rights of all people citizens and non-citizens alike.
Unfortunately the United States citizens have a grossly distorted perception of International law for a few reasons. First, the American media makes no effort to actually talk about International Law because they like to maintain the perception that the US is free in its choices and not constrained by laws. Secondly, the American government attempts to paint a picture that International law is simply a weapon of the developing world to attack the United States, even Bill Clinton signing multiple 2 state treaties to preclude American citizens from being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC). He did this telling the American people that he wanted to protect American citizens from "unfair trials" though the actual purpose was more likely to protect them om having to answer for many illegal actions that are occurring daily in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as political leaders carrying out deliberate human rights violations.

I get where you're coming from, but I still feel that the UN if it is to be characterized as an agent is too severely constrained by the wills of states to be characterized as the largest threat to global peace and stability.
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:06:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 10:39:27 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The IMF has caused some pretty serious havoc in third world countries, too.

True, but the IMF is largely a tool of Western Countries and a great deal of that blame lies squarely on Washington's shoulders. They call neoliberalism, which Microsoft Word doesn't recognize as a word by the way, the Washington Consensus for a reason.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 12:15:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Laws against the advancement of science . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 12:26:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 10:05:18 AM, governments_kill wrote:

I get where you're coming from, but I still feel that the UN if it is to be characterized as an agent is too severely constrained by the wills of states to be characterized as the largest threat to global peace and stability.

So obviously I don't know anything about international law. What I'm trying to observe is that through various actions, the big governments of the world have eliminated "the frontier". There is no place left on earth that is unclaimed by governments.

No possible entry into the market of "government"? Cartel time.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:20:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:26:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
So obviously I don't know anything about international law. What I'm trying to observe is that through various actions, the big governments of the world have eliminated "the frontier". There is no place left on earth that is unclaimed by governments.

And? To point out, with the expansion and explosion of the human race, "big governments" or not, there would not really be any place left on the planet unclaimed anyways. The fact that countries can now extend their borders and define them with some accuracy comes out as a result of technology, population, and the need for growth, and frankly, definitive boundaries (which have always existed). This would most likely be occurring no matter what happened.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:34:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:25:29 PM, Sieben wrote:
Oh, and a less stupid example. They still leave boats alone in international waters.

Libertarians should pool our money, buy this http://www.telegraph.co.uk... and start our won country out in international waters.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:02:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:15:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Laws against the advancement of science . . .

Its true . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:12:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:26:28 PM, Sieben wrote:

So obviously I don't know anything about international law. What I'm trying to observe is that through various actions, the big governments of the world have eliminated "the frontier". There is no place left on earth that is unclaimed by governments.

Thanks for admitting that you're not familiar with international law. It is helpful to know where people are coming from in a conversation. I wasn't trying to show you up because I think your point is interesting. However this concept of the frontier is interesting. When has there ever been a true frontier. To claim that America was founded on a frontier is a scary definition of the word frontier because then a frontier can be inhabited and settled land. Just because the settlements weren't white and European doesn't mean they weren't there. Just food for thought. Also the "frontier" was one of the most hotly contested border disputes if we accurately recognize indigenous nations as sovereigns during that time period. So to suggest, as it seems that you're doing, that the frontier somehow creates peace seems irresponsible to me.