I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.
I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.
I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.
If a nation can project power where necessary, and can be persuaded to do so in concert with other likewise capable nations, on a course of action that will lead to greater harmony between nations and between peoples then this is a good thing.
However, the representative nation state is the ultimate authority, and acts as it pleases but in the knowledge that it is judged by its peers, other nation states. It can do so because its actions are directly sanctioned by the people it governs, which means that is acceptable that the consequences of those actions be borne by those peoples.
There is no moral authority in my mind to the UN, it merely serves as a forum for decision on action necessary by sovereign nation states. It has no innate authority because there is no direct mandate from the people affected, therefore it is not right that they should bear the consequences of actions taken in their name.
Bookmarks