4 ms·

Well, "a lot of people" don't like courts, either. But we still have them, because its the best system we have come up with, so far, to make the world a better

by yaix 15y ago

Well, "a lot of people" don't like courts, either. But we still have them, because its the best system we have come up with, so far, to make the world a better and more livable/secure place for everybody. Maybe there is a better way, but humanity hasn't discovered it yet. Violence and threats have, in the past, shown that they are always the worse option in the long term. Unilatral violence just looks appealing to the simple minded, because its easy to understand. I still hope that politics is not entirely many by the simple minded, though. If you want to learn about the UN or ICJ, there is a lot of academic material out there on the tubes. It is a much to complex issue to be "quickly" discussed on a hacker board. You probably would not discuss Erlang in a political science forum either ;)

dantheman 15y ago
I am pretty well informed on both the UN & ICJ and while I can say I agree with what their goals are I think the means and implementation are completely incorrect. I think that not intervention and human relief/asylum/evacuation are the ways to deal with international problems. I prefer a loosely integrated system where it's hard for anyone group to gain control. This requires decentralization & a lack of strong international organizations. I'd like to note, that I'm interested in stability & corruption - worst case scenarios, etc. If you have anything you recommend that addresses those issues I'd like to read it. And lastly, I'd like to quote milton friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
- yaix 15y ago
  I agree with you view on crisis reaction, that is not intervention and hunman relief. And the UN does that most of the time. That is why Blue Helmets are usually regarded as "useless" by many, because they don't fight. Unfortunately, that leeds to bad press and public opinion. The UN is important as a mechanism of creating trust between nations, as a standardized communication platform. That is its main purpose. It publishes treaties, it has specialized forums to deal with different policy topics and create common rules, etc. A loosely integrated system leads to the most physically powerful group to control everybody else, with no rules what so ever. Then Rumsfeld's "Enemy Fighters" (for who the Genevoa Convention does not count according to the Bush Government) would be the norm, not the shameful exception. That does not sound like a good idea. I agree that the UN and the ICJ have tons of shortcomings, but its the best humanity has been ably to come up with so far to organize the international system.

by yaix 15y ago

dantheman 15y ago

I am pretty well informed on both the UN & ICJ and while I can say I agree with what their goals are I think the means and implementation are completely incorrect. I think that not intervention and human relief/asylum/evacuation are the ways to deal with international problems. I prefer a loosely integrated system where it's hard for anyone group to gain control. This requires decentralization & a lack of strong international organizations. I'd like to note, that I'm interested in stability & corruption - worst case scenarios, etc. If you have anything you recommend that addresses those issues I'd like to read it. And lastly, I'd like to quote milton friedman: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

yaix 15y ago
I agree with you view on crisis reaction, that is not intervention and hunman relief. And the UN does that most of the time. That is why Blue Helmets are usually regarded as "useless" by many, because they don't fight. Unfortunately, that leeds to bad press and public opinion. The UN is important as a mechanism of creating trust between nations, as a standardized communication platform. That is its main purpose. It publishes treaties, it has specialized forums to deal with different policy topics and create common rules, etc. A loosely integrated system leads to the most physically powerful group to control everybody else, with no rules what so ever. Then Rumsfeld's "Enemy Fighters" (for who the Genevoa Convention does not count according to the Bush Government) would be the norm, not the shameful exception. That does not sound like a good idea. I agree that the UN and the ICJ have tons of shortcomings, but its the best humanity has been ably to come up with so far to organize the international system.