Patrick O'Brian Discussion Forum

I was afraid that would draw fire.

I promise that I thought about those quote marks, about adding an explanation, and decided I'd used too many words already. I should have found a way to explain that I'm not sure of the correct terminology. I was sure that if I used the term without quotes, it would turn out that technically speaking there's no such thing, or that there are actually three bodies that go by that name, or some such thing.

I would guess that many of the people who say the US should get out of the UN believe not that the UN has authority over the US, but that it has aspirations thereto, or that it will have someday. And yes, many of the people who say the US broke "international law" by invading Iraq mean that the invaders disobeyed the UN. Some of them said as much in this forum back then.

On Sun Nov 1, The Last of the True French Short Bastards wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------
>Why is World Court in quotation marks? That's its nickname. (In fact there are different institutions which have that nickname; the International Court of Justice is the best-known.) ....

>I don't know of anybody who thinks that there is an authority "over" the nations as a national government is over its citizens; anybody who thinks that of the UN is ignorant of the structure and function of the UN.

>When I was a kid I used to see bumper stickers that said "US OUT OF THE UN" and I thought (and still think) those drivers were insane. The US founded the UN for very good reasons, and it has saved countless lives since then; for the US to leave would be disastrous. However, if they are ignorant enough to believe that the UN is somehow "over" the US, that would explain it.

On Sun Nov 1, Bob Bridges wrote
-------------------------------
>There may be people who sneer at the concept of "international law" for that reason, Bātard, but my own sneer (such as it was) at the beginning of this conversation was aimed elsewhere. It's my perception that most people who cite "international law" are talking not about treaties between sovereign nations, and their moral obligation to hold to those agreements, but about an imaginary authority that is over the nations as national governments are over their citizens. I think some people believe that authority to be the UN, and others the "world court" at the Hague; others, probably, have no specific idea what they mean by it. If and when I permit myself to sneer, it's because I still believe in the sovereignty of nations.

>On Sat Oct 31, The Last of the True French Short Bastards wrote
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>It has become commonplace for certain groups to sneer at the notion of international law, and as far as I can tell they are really just crypto-imperialists, who secretly believe that America should be able to do as she damn well pleases in the world simply because she is wealthy and powerful....

Sun Nov 1

This message read 59 times