Please explain to me what makes the UN more "law" than NATO.

Please explain to me how the UN is not merely a treaty between nations.

I am not sure where you got the idea that the UN was the supreme law of anything. The UN does not supercede the US constitution in the US (for example).

With one exception; only Democracies are members of NATO. I assume it would remain that way.

I agree. Conditionally.

Yes.

I do not believe that could be done under the UN.

I just gave you my personal opinion on how best to achieve it. Legitimizing oppressive nations is part of the problem, not the solution.

The jailing of ANY rapists is better than not jailing any. Even if you are aiding and abetting other rapes.

If they are not subject to audit by the masses, how do we know any of the aid will get where it is supposed to go anyway? How do you prevent another Oil for Food scandal?

That is why positive reinforcement doesnt work. In addition to that, oppressive governments rarely if ever surrender their power willingly.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The UN security council can pass resolutions that become binding under international law.

The security council, general assembly and ICC provide structures for arbitration and adjudication and occasionally enforcement.

The UN charter (whilst still being a treaty itself) explicitly states that it trumps all other treaties.

These are some of the differences but, as I said, I`m not an expert. I think what I`m mainly driving at is that the UN (and the ICC) provide the nascent beginnings of an independent international legal system.

The biggest problem about international law is that it is interpreted by the nation states themselves. Obviously if there is a dispute between nations then the law itself is also disputed.


UN resolutions are used to legitimise breaches of national sovereignty.

Why not? The UK`s parliamentary system has grown from beginnings that would scarcely be described as democratic by today`s standards.



Who would do the deciding on which nation was oppressive and which was not?

Not if you`re trying to put an end to rape.

Giving support to oppressive dictatorships strengthens, enforces and prolongs those regimes. It`s not a policy that anyone would follow if they were seriously determined to fight against such regimes.


I do not think it is beyond the wit of our politicians to design and implement audits or anti-corruption mechanisms. As an example recent aid initiatives have offered aid packages to needy countries only if their economic systems are demonstrating `good practice` and a requisite level of transparency.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

What is stopping us from modifying the NATO treaty in the same way? Or even creating a new alliance alltogether?

See above. No treaty supercedes the Constitution in the US. The UN is nothing more than a treaty.

I am unwilling to hope that the UN evolves into a true democratic institution, or that it's member states will evolve into democracies as the UK system did.

Starting over with a democracy-only institution removes all doubt.

Whoever joins the new club. That seems obvious to me. That is how the UN already works isnt it?

Their sincerity is irrelevant if the end result is fewer rapists.

It will only work if there are real consequences and ways to verify compliance. Saddam has proven the UN has no backbone when it comes to either of these. Saddam continuously violated their resolutions and they did nothing.

What kind of message does that send do you think? Does it encourage or discourage future compliance with resolutions?

I do not see the UN changing it's methods any time soon if at all. Part of the problem is that many of the member states are problems themselves.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?