Well here is a part within the U.N. charter that tell's of there right to immunity.

Article 105
1.The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.

2.Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization

The key part is "As Are Necessary For The Fulfilment Of Its Purposes & For The Independent Exercise Of Their Function's"

Simply within this text can give another U.N. member the right to deny another member the right to immunity. ( Only if proven that it is necessary to deny immunity or a privilege, to up hold the U.N./Country's intrest's, then such can deny such.)

Here is an example,

A U.N. peacekeeper is in another nation, that peacekeeper is in a wacth tower working, then that U.N. peacekeeper leave's his post, then gose into the city and rape's a little girl.

By the U.N. charter he has immunity to the law that he had broke, BUT since that law he broke was not NECESSARY FOR THE FULFILMENT OF THE U.N.'s PURPOSES, another can deny him immunity to that law that he broke on that very ground's, since a law that was broken must be broken due to the fact that it was necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes.

The reason why they have privileges and immunities is due to that fact that they are necessary.

Therefore another member must prove that the law they broke was NOT necessary for the fulfilment of purposes.

Since there is no article that state's that such cannot be done, then such can be done.

The rule only exist due to there reason why it exist's, and there reason why it exist's is out of the necessity of fulfilment of there purposes.

Therefore to make the rule not exist or not to apply to one or another, one or another must prove that the reason why, dosent apply to the law that they had broke.

Therefore one cannot claim privileges and immunities from the U.N. if what they do is not necessary for the fulfilment of the U.N.'s interst's.

It seem's holding trail's for people that break such law's that are not necessary in keeping the peace should be done, for it would increase diplomatic relation's with the country that has had it's law's broken (Such as rape, ect)

Yet from this point and view and perception of artical 105 an immunity from a single law can be revoked under agreed term's that breaking that law is not necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes. ( Mainly rape)

Yet other's could say, that putting those people on trail would not be in the intrest's of the host nation, yet in a way it can, by sacraficing one person for a few year's to increase diplomacy with another nation...(And therefor increaseing trade&ect) and that I'm sure would be seen as more of a reason to hold such people on trail.

This is just another point of view of the U.N. charter that I have portrayed, I do not support nor not support there action's and the way how they conduct those action's.

Yet it seem's clear that there is a major conterdiction within there charter, that allow's one country to deny a right given by the charter if it's in the intrests of that country or another country or party.

Simply, a self governing system that judge's it's own action's by it's own perception of there own choosing, hence playing the game of life by there own rule's, and judges them self only to please the intrest's of themself or another...

It's truely a system that will lead to major internal conflict's....

__________________
For it is what it is, for that is what I say it is, therefore making it what it is, and thats what I say it is, and therefore I made it what it is

The representative of the UN must be invited into the country. The UN charter prohibits member states from any intervention in the sovereign affairs of any nation. If the UN is invited into a country then country has the right to establish the rules of conduct for UN members and not the Unite Nations.

National sovereigty trumps anything in the UN Charter.

__________________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Forum Rules and Guidelines: http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...uncements.html

Yes correct, therefore only the host U.N. can deny a immunity to a law if it is seen to be in the intrest's/purpose of that host U.N. party.

They just put that necessary part in there to get people to attack that and not attack the part that show's them how to get the people on trail, and that's to show the U.N. that it's in there interst's to deny them an immunity or privliage on the ground's that it is in there intrests to deny them that immunity or privliage. (To increase diplomatic relation's with another nation, or to gain other benifit's for puting them on trail within the nation that they commited the crime in, it's a deturante to other member's so they dont commit un needed crime's, mainly sexual one's.)

So that's mainly the only way to do it, due to the fact that it's a self-governing system.

__________________
For it is what it is, for that is what I say it is, therefore making it what it is, and thats what I say it is, and therefore I made it what it is