4 ms·

What's a good historical example of a national or global institution voluntarily giving up totalitarian powers That's the question you asked and 'it's a thing

by pvg 4y ago

What's a good historical example of a national or global institution voluntarily giving up totalitarian powers That's the question you asked and 'it's a thing that happens all the time' is the answer. Global institutions don't have any 'totalitarian powers' so that one has a simple answer too.

walterbell 4y ago
There's a difference between "totalitarian" and "emergency" powers. > Global institutions don't have any 'totalitarian powers' If 50% of countries agree in May 2023 to the draft WHO/IHR amendment to drop "human rights", that would change.
- fwungy 4y ago
  [flagged]
- pvg 4y ago
  There's a difference between "totalitarian" and "emergency" powers. We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them. If 50% of countries agree in May 2023 to the draft WHO/IHR amendment to drop "human rights", that would change. No it wouldn't. WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work, if any and come to the agreement to begin with. 'International organizations with unchecked supranational powers' is an idea with a long history in the US but it's not a real thing, it's largely a Bircher (and similar) fever dream.
  - walterbell 4y ago
    > We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them. Emergency powers end after some time period. The draft IHR amendments are not time limited and affect 196 countries. > WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work. Yes, the 196 countries voting in May 2023 for the IHR amendments. So the options are: 1) Countries implement totalitarian policy after voting YES, to comply with IHR-23. 2) Some countries vote YES, then refuse to implement IHR-23. 3) Some countries vote NO, IHR-23 passes by majority, they withdraw from IHR.

by pvg 4y ago

walterbell 4y ago

There's a difference between "totalitarian" and "emergency" powers. > Global institutions don't have any 'totalitarian powers' If 50% of countries agree in May 2023 to the draft WHO/IHR amendment to drop "human rights", that would change.

fwungy 4y ago
[flagged]
pvg 4y ago
There's a difference between "totalitarian" and "emergency" powers. We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them. If 50% of countries agree in May 2023 to the draft WHO/IHR amendment to drop "human rights", that would change. No it wouldn't. WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work, if any and come to the agreement to begin with. 'International organizations with unchecked supranational powers' is an idea with a long history in the US but it's not a real thing, it's largely a Bircher (and similar) fever dream.
- walterbell 4y ago
  > We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them. Emergency powers end after some time period. The draft IHR amendments are not time limited and affect 196 countries. > WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work. Yes, the 196 countries voting in May 2023 for the IHR amendments. So the options are: 1) Countries implement totalitarian policy after voting YES, to comply with IHR-23. 2) Some countries vote YES, then refuse to implement IHR-23. 3) Some countries vote NO, IHR-23 passes by majority, they withdraw from IHR.