Post by fetus on Apr 1, 2004 7:56:34 GMT -5
dang, first off, what is UNILATERALISM? it actually means
"A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company)
in context with the global scheme we have presently, we have an international organization whose one of their aim is to
"...to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest..." (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
i am talking about the United Nations.
with the above-mentioned principle, UN has developed laws regarding with the use of armed force especially when it involves states that are presumably equal, and has the same stature. as what i understood, UN denounces unilateralism. in effect, Kofi Annan said "the Council had not endorsed this war (on Iraq)." (http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6631&Cr=iraq&Cr1=)
maybe the question whether it was unilateralism or not would crop up. didn't Britain and Australia were joining America? yes they were, but basing from the events that transpired pre and post war, America was responsible for it all.
United States was the one who spearheaded in the organization of UN wayback 1940's. their aim is to stop the calamity we call war by -- this is ironic -- having an organization that would decide whether an action is right or not, beneficial or not. the key word is MULTILATERAL.
"A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company)
in context with the global scheme we have presently, we have an international organization whose one of their aim is to
"...to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest..." (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
i am talking about the United Nations.
with the above-mentioned principle, UN has developed laws regarding with the use of armed force especially when it involves states that are presumably equal, and has the same stature. as what i understood, UN denounces unilateralism. in effect, Kofi Annan said "the Council had not endorsed this war (on Iraq)." (http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6631&Cr=iraq&Cr1=)
maybe the question whether it was unilateralism or not would crop up. didn't Britain and Australia were joining America? yes they were, but basing from the events that transpired pre and post war, America was responsible for it all.
United States was the one who spearheaded in the organization of UN wayback 1940's. their aim is to stop the calamity we call war by -- this is ironic -- having an organization that would decide whether an action is right or not, beneficial or not. the key word is MULTILATERAL.
