Born lucky ? (was Re: [extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense)

[Brett Paatsch]

"KPJ" wrote:

> There exists a number of humans who use the power of deadly
> force to back their control over some specific territory. Some 
> 60 earth years ago, a number of these humans decided to force
> other humans to fight in an event usually called World War II.
> 
> After this event ended, those humans who made the other
> humans lose the control of their territory ("the victors") decided
> to form an organization with a written set of rules. They named
> the organization United Nations and called the written rules a
> "charter".
> 
> According to these rules humans who represent the humans who
> rule over some of specific territories shall meet, and humans
> representing some of these rulers have more to say over the
> proceedings of the organization.
 
> When the rulers of those territories decide that they do not want
> follow the written rules of the organization, which humans in
> which courts would prosecute them for not following those rules?

Its hard to answer this as a hypothetical because details that you
haven't provided matter. What is a ruler? A President elected for
a 4 year term isn't a ruler of the same sort as the head of state of
China.

I think it is useful to consider member nations at the UN as falling into
three different classes. Ordinary members, permanent security council
members except the US, and the US alone as a special case. 

Ordinary members. If these sign treaties then disputes can be
taken to the ICJ and the ICJ will make a ruling and if the members
don't want to comply with it the Security Council MAY enforce 
compliance.  I don't know (I am ignorant of) how often this process
would have been used during the Cold War as the USSR and the
US would have been far more likely to slant every issue their way via
use of the veto. 

Permanent Security Council members. These are effectively immune
from having UN authorised force used on them under ANY circumstances
for the simple reason that they can veto the resolution that would be
needed to authorise that force. 

PSC members may still have political or moral force or international
outrage directed against them if they are thought by the citizens of other
countries to have misbehaved but that is not legal force (ie not UN
authorised force). 

The US - as sole remaining military superpower. 

The US is now in a class of its own in my opinion because it is the
only member nation powerful enough to say to the UN that it will
revoke the UN if the UN fails to perform its mandated tasks of
maintaining international peace and security.

The US can choose whether the world lives under conditions of
honour or whether the foreseeable future is just about 'might makes
right'.  

By the US here I mean US citizens voting and effecting the
constitutions of their governments.  No war, not even a just
war could legally (ie legally under the UN Charter) be declared
on the US as the US would veto it.  Same for the other big 5.

So in practice the only thing that is policing a US President that
breaks international law are US citizens if they so choose too. 

The US citizens are the only ones that can remove a US President
lawfully - at an election - or possible through impeachment which
is pretty unlikely.  

It might be possible under some circumstances to hold a President
to legal account under US domestic law for breaking international
law (and in so doing harming US citizens that were relying on it), 
but I don't know about that. 

> - - - - -
> 
> I believe the rulers sending representatives to the Security Council
> to have act as the ultimate court over matters of the organization.

>  If they decide to not follow the written rules, then that's that.

In societies of primates that watch each other intently and rotate our
leaders from time to time there are ALWAYS consequences of being
SEEN to have broken the rules. 

Not everyone who sees a lawbreaker cares about the victum but they
keep a good eye on the perpetrator out of healthy self interest. 

Brett Paatsch