Talk:Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Week 8

see Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Week 6

Joelenne Revak CQ #7

This question is based on the discussion on 4/17/07 as well as the UN Charter giving the Security Council veto powers. In regards to Libya V the U.S., it seems as though the real message of the UN Charter is not an attempt at a world of peace, but that larger countries will fight harder and with a greater devastation impact than those not complying with means of international peace agreements, or maybe just those that are lacking a Republic government. It also seems to be complying with the idea that the ICJ will never gain power by siding with the Security Council decisions. With the bombing of the American Airline plane in Libya, the point of reference really seems to be the background on the case, where both nations, the U.S. and Libya were egging one another on, seeing at what point would the other declare war. While Libya seemed to do it avertedly, the U.S. caused destruction in the open. This is not the dispute however, as to which country was abiding by “fair” operations, but more of political and legal lines on whether the U.S. should have appealed to the Security Council by which the U.S. also is one of the five votes, to put sanctions on Libya a day before the final ruling of the ICJ. Is justice really served when the ICJ then rules in favor of the Security Council’s decision, based mainly on the fact of the Security Council’s veto powers? I realize we have pointed out in class that republic nations will no longer engage in wars with one another, and the UN does not have the powers that a sovereign nation with an active government would have. I also take note that if the powers do not lay with the UN, that a nation with the power will need to step in, and if be to act as a deterrent for other combative nations. However, I keep coming back to the question of how the UN Charter was set up. Did the framers really not foresee this system failing as it has been in the past twenty years? To set up a system to make international laws, and then set up a counter system to always have power of veto to any of the laws made, how is the ideal of justice ever to really prevail? Why again, do we continue to follow the ways of the established Charter if there is not significant evidence of it actually doing what was intended to be done? Take an example of the EU, in which they are, not allowing members if they are not Republic forms of governments, and enforcing the claim by no longer trading outside of the EU with non republic governments. This example is proof that peace can be established without first enacting in war by which the larger country will demolish the smaller and force them to comply.

Joelenne Revak CQ#8

My question is more of an ethical one than a lawful one, however it is in reference to what the law ought to be, it is also dealing with the actions by which the members of the Security Council retain their powers. It seems as though the U.S. over the past 30 years has been actively engaging in wars with Chili, Libya, Cuba, Iraq to name a few based on the nations non republican governments. Each time it also seems the actions are backed up by the Security Council, or at least protected by the UN Charter stating no members of the Security Council will be removed from the Security Council or ever loses their veto powers. France is doing the same thing with other nations. If we look at Kant’s essay of Perpetual Peace, the U.S. and France seem to be following his ideas quite closely on the statement of Republic governments will no longer be at war with one another, as well as non Republic governments are not to be trusted. My question is more of what was brought up in class on 4/17/07, first that while Kant’s statements seems to be in effect, what line have we determined to be a Republic form of government? If we have determined a line, is this a fair line set by the UN or set by five permanent members of the Security Council? If the standard of a Republican form of government is to care for the minorities of a group and create voice for them, how often would the U.S. actually even measure up to this standard? Shall I name the obvious? It took 200 years for women to have a voice, longer for Blacks and people of non European ancestry, immigrants have to jump through almost impossible hoops to have a voice, and Native Americans, considered Sovereign Nations, still are yet to be represented in our nation in the concept of looking out for their best interest. The poor continue have no voice, as the ruling of the Slaughter House Cases gave way for any corporation to set up landfills, toxic waste dumps, smoke stacks, chemical plants and whatever else in poor communities through out the U.S. Other republican nations seem to not always look out for their minority groups either. At what point is anyone held to a standard? At what point is it really justified to try to hold other countries to this standard the larger countries are yet to follow? Where is justice? Has she hidden herself in our machine guns and missiles and atomic bombs? Listen closer, maybe she is the cry of the oppressed in our own nation pleading to be acknowledged.