Why Are The Ab Allowing Posters That...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Do Countries Need Un Appoval Before Wedging War On Another Coultry Legal?
21 Answers
UN do not decide which war is legal or illegal.
There are many UN resolutions that are broken. Why?
UN is ineffective because there are too many UN members with differing agendas.
For example, Russia, (or other 5 permanent UN security council members - which comprises of Russia, China, USA, France, UK) may veto UN security council resolutions.
In an emergency situation, waging war on behalf of the Queen remain the executive Royal Prerogative of the UK's PM of the day (perhaps after consulting party leaders, colleagues, Queen, Privy Council). Debates in Parliament to signal approval on military action can delay urgent military action, as well as jeopardising details of military preparedness & manoeuvres.
Any state can come in aid of any state that is being oppressed. After all, world politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
It is submitted that the right of veto against of any UN Security Council decisions by any one of the 5 UN permanent security members (i.e. USA, UK, Russia, China, France) should be changed – so that if the 5 permanent security members were unable to reach unanimous votes, as are often the case, decisions of the UN security council should then be based upon majority voting of all permanent & non-permanent UN Security Council members at the time.
A country can act self-defence (UN Charter Article 51 & International Law) & hot-pursuit in self-defence their enemies - like in pursuit of terrorists who commit atrocities that include committing crimes against humanity like genocide, mass murder, beheading those kidnaped
There are many UN resolutions that are broken. Why?
UN is ineffective because there are too many UN members with differing agendas.
For example, Russia, (or other 5 permanent UN security council members - which comprises of Russia, China, USA, France, UK) may veto UN security council resolutions.
In an emergency situation, waging war on behalf of the Queen remain the executive Royal Prerogative of the UK's PM of the day (perhaps after consulting party leaders, colleagues, Queen, Privy Council). Debates in Parliament to signal approval on military action can delay urgent military action, as well as jeopardising details of military preparedness & manoeuvres.
Any state can come in aid of any state that is being oppressed. After all, world politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
It is submitted that the right of veto against of any UN Security Council decisions by any one of the 5 UN permanent security members (i.e. USA, UK, Russia, China, France) should be changed – so that if the 5 permanent security members were unable to reach unanimous votes, as are often the case, decisions of the UN security council should then be based upon majority voting of all permanent & non-permanent UN Security Council members at the time.
A country can act self-defence (UN Charter Article 51 & International Law) & hot-pursuit in self-defence their enemies - like in pursuit of terrorists who commit atrocities that include committing crimes against humanity like genocide, mass murder, beheading those kidnaped
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willbewhatiwill. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.