Who Should Have More Legal Authority: The Government of Your Nation, or The UN?

[Divinus Arma]

Simple question really. Do you believe that your nation should have supremacy over itself or that the UN should have supremacy of your nation?

A good parallel would be the U.S. States Rights vs Federal Supremacy, i.e. Confederation vs. Union. The only difference being that the UN is not a representative elected body.

[solypsist]

have more legal authority over what, exactly, in regards to my nation? domestic, or international laws? you don't leave any room for specifics.

really, if you want to have a proper discussion you can't just go around throwing around generalizations and hoping someone takes the bait with such a weak framing of the subject. if you were serious about discussing this then you would haev taken the time to qyalify what, exactly, you mean. as it stands now the phrase legal authority could mean anything from levying taxes in my country to allowing my country to invade another.

Simple question really. Do you believe that your nation should have supremacy over itself or that the UN should have supremacy of your nation?

A good parallel would be the U.S. States Rights vs Federal Supremacy, i.e. Confederation vs. Union. The only difference being that the UN is not a representative elected body.

[Zain]

I voted for the second one. We're the USA, we don't need a superior telling us what to do, only suggestions and things.

-ZainDustin

[Don Corleone]

Oh come on Soly, don't think just cause you're shippin out, we're going to let you get away with cracks like that, do you?

First, DA's question was intentionally simple because it's steered towards basic sovereignty, not nuance.

Second of all, if you want to pull some John Kerry type answer and say "If it only affects the USA, then we should have the say. But if we impact other countries, they should have a say" I say Pffft to that, right here and now. As the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause has shown, any time you give wiggle room to politicians, they'll take a mile.

I can totally see the UN claiming property taxes in my little Hamlet are impacting life in Europe, and they have a need to oversee (and surprise, surprise, raise them). Paranoid? Maybe. Just because you're paranoid though doesn't mean they're not out to get you. The UN has been trying for decades to ban personal firearm ownership in the USA, and that sure as shoot doesnt' impact life in Europe.

[Lemur]

The U.N. is weak by design. Those who have ambitions of one world government will need to either re-tool the U.N. or build their own uber-government, preferably in a volcano lair. Or a giant submarine.

Both the paranoid and the starry-eyed expect waaaaay too much from the debating club.

[Avicenna]

My own country. The UN showed how useful they are in Rwanda, and how long they took to actually go over there. The Americans and Japanese have the most influence in the UN due to them giving it loads of money and troops, so it would be them bossing everyone round.

"Do this or you don't get any more money"

[Divinus Arma]

This question is supposed to be general, but let's look at it in both lights anyway, Soly, domestically and internationally. Just remember, as Don Corleone explained, that "international" is open to interpretation. I think the Commerce clause & Supremacy Clause was a perfect example since those two clauses combined have essentially rendered the "enumerated powers" of the Federal Government to be nonsense. It would be the same situation with compulsory adherance to UN "laws". What makes it worse is that the UN is completely unelected. There is no actual representation from the citizenry. The power is far too removed from the hands of sovereign individuals to prevent corruption.

I do believe that the UN has its place. But not as a sovereign entity with binding jurisdiction.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I do believe that the UN has its place. But not as a sovereign entity with binding jurisdiction.

Agreed, in principle. But I do believe that international law, upheld by international bodies, is essential to regulate a world where most citizens have little or no choice over their governments. Indeed, the US was a leading light in establishing this principle - sadly not with this adminsitration.

I can totally see the UN claiming property taxes in my little Hamlet are impacting life in Europe, and they have a need to oversee (and surprise, surprise, raise them). Paranoid? Maybe. Just because you're paranoid though doesn't mean they're not out to get you. The UN has been trying for decades to ban personal firearm ownership in the USA, and that sure as shoot doesnt' impact life in Europe.

Frankly, I can't see the UN agreeing on anything as complicated as this scenario - they have troubling agreeing if the sun is going to rise next day.

However, it is an interesting point in the context - what do you think of the legality/authority of the World Trade Organisation, which largely does exactly what you resent, under the guise of 'free trade'?

[spmetla]

Agreed, in principle. But I do believe that international law, upheld by international bodies, is essential to regulate a world where most citizens have little or no choice over their governments. Indeed, the US was a leading light in establishing this principle - sadly not with this adminsitration.



Frankly, I can't see the UN agreeing on anything as complicated as this scenario - they have troubling agreeing if the sun is going to rise next day.

However, it is an interesting point in the context - what do you think of the legality/authority of the World Trade Organisation, which largely does exactly what you resent, under the guise of 'free trade'?

Well in all fairness to the sun rising some member nations of the UN have citizens that don't see a sunrise for months due to their location above the North Pole (I realize you were kidding)

The UN is too divided to do anything quickly. It'll be a long time before there is a "world government".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well in all fairness to the sun rising some member nations of the UN have citizens that don't see a sunrise for months due to their location above the North Pole (I realize you were kidding)

Note to the UN: Just because you can't see it, don't mean it ain't there.

[doc_bean]

The UN is not a government but the assembly of governments, therefor it holds no authority not granted to it by those nations, and it shouldn't.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I do believe that the UN has its place. But not as a sovereign entity with binding jurisdiction.

Agreed, in principle. But I do believe that international law, upheld by international bodies, is essential to regulate a world where most citizens have little or no choice over their governments. Indeed, the US was a leading light in establishing this principle - sadly not with this adminsitration.

That is well said.

I do not want to relinquish our sovereignty. Which is neither the idea behind the UN, nor a feasiblity. But I would like a lot more international agreements, more rule of law in foreign relations. I wouldn't mind them being binding for the participants either. In that sense, I have no problem with giving up parts of our sovereignty.

[Slyspy]

I find it amusing that people blame the UN for "its" failings as if it is somehow an independent entity. The UN is just a gaint club, and like all clubs it is controlled by its members, especially the committee. If the UN fails it is because those members have failed.

[SomeNick]

Hmmm I didn't vote because I'm not sure. I think countries should have their own authority and not capitulate to another group for authority if that groups actions are questionable in any way. A perfect authoritative group with no vested interests is yet to be seen I think.

[Keba]

I voted yes, but not in the sense of the UN replacing or becoming a goverment in itself, just that it should have legal authority to enforce the basics, like the Declaration of Human Rights and such.

Otherwise, no intervention, but if your goverment decides to breake a rule or is proven to be corrupt as hell, the UN sends a provisionary goverment until things are stabilized, and any illegal (internationally, which also means a lot more international laws) laws and acts are taken back. Then the provisional goverment oversees new elections and goes away.

It would be a perfect system, and would prevent quite a few wars and tragedies ... but perfect systems don't exists. So, should the UN have legal authority (in the sense stated above)? Yes. Will it? Never. Why? I don't trust politicians, and the UN has nothing but those.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Otherwise, no intervention, but if your goverment decides to breake a rule or is proven to be corrupt as hell, the UN sends a provisionary goverment until things are stabilized, and any illegal (internationally, which also means a lot more international laws) laws and acts are taken back. Then the provisional goverment oversees new elections and goes away.

It would be a perfect system, and would prevent quite a few wars and tragedies ... but perfect systems don't exists. So, should the UN have legal authority (in the sense stated above)? Yes. Will it? Never. Why? I don't trust politicians, and the UN has nothing but those.

Erm, what happens if the aforementioned corrupt government decides it really doesn't want a provisonal government from the UN to replace it?

[Keba]

Erm, what happens if the aforementioned corrupt government decides it really doesn't want a provisonal government from the UN to replace it?

Send in the smurfs (AKA, the blue helmets).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Send in the smurfs (AKA, the blue helmets).

Not exactly designed to prevent wars then?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Ze secont oneee (french accent)

[Husar]

The UN should rule, period.
If it shouldn´t then let Iran, have it´s nukes...
If it´s me or the others and only my rules count, then I say we shall soon have WW3, total anrchy and lots of nukes, because my opinion is the only one that matters and I WANT TO RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Keba]

Not exactly designed to prevent wars then?

Well ... um ... it'd prevent the really major conflicts?

It's really not fair to undermine people's arguements with logic.

[Tribesman]

The UN should rule, period.
If it shouldn´t then let Iran, have it´s nukes...
Damn , who can put up any points against that simple summation ?

So if the UN has no legal authority how can anyone claim to take any action against somehing on the grounds of an authority when they deny that the authority has any actual ....ummm...authority ?