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

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at
Tue Aug 31 04:48:25 UTC 2004

"KPJ" wrote:

> Which court would prosecute the United Nations for not following its

That sentence doesn't parse for me.  The United Nations is not a single
sentience or a single consciousness its an organisation made up of member

I welcome criticisms of the UN.  To criticise it effectively will require
understanding it and understanding it could be a very healthy thing.

I don't claim to understand it completely - I just claim that it is worth
understanding - that it makes sense to understand it if one wants to
pursue what I understand to be extropic and transhumanist agendas
effectively globally.

Chapter III
Organs (of the UN)

Article 7

1. There are established as the principle organs of the UN; a General
Assembly; a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council,
a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice, and a

2. Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established
in accordance with the present Charter.

(That's about 2/3rd of the whole chapter III - we are not talking about
a big document here)

So the UN Charter creates an International Court of Justice like I
presume the US constitution creates a Supreme Court of the US.

 > Do not treat United Nations as you would a local organization.

I won't. I promise. :-)

> Politics, in the form of foreign policy, controls United Nations, not law.
> When they feel that the charter hinders them, they will simply sidestep

The members of the United Nations are nations.

The prohibition on nations 'sidestepping' their obligations under the UN
has been limited yes - because the security council had to approve
disciplinary measures taken against the offending nation and usually one
of the big 5 was onside with the offender and so stopped any effective
resolution against the offender being passed.

Now, the only nation powerful enough to sidestep the UN Charter is
the US. And the US does it only through the actions of the commander
in chief - the President.

Clearly other countries cannot remove the US President if he sets aside
the UN Charter unless they are willing to go to war against him.

But here is the important point, US citizens *can* remove the US President
*if* they want the UN Charter to work, and *if* they want the US signature
on treaties to carry a difference sort of weight than merely the weight of
military power.

I am saying that it is for the US citizens to police the US President and to
uphold the UN Charter if they so choose, or not, if they don't.

If as a US citizen, you don't want the UN to work or to mean anything,
then that is *your* choice.

If you do want it to work or to be reformed you will have to understand
how it works currently.  Ignorance of the UN by US citizens will produce
a set of consequences.

Brett Paatsch

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list