06-06-2004, 08:13 PM
"They were not. The *only* UN body that has the competence to decide in such questions is the Security Council. There is no SC resolution that says the UN are in opposition to that war. It´s that simple.
If their had been an SC resolution saying the war was false, then one could say that the UN as an organization were against the war. There is, of course, no such resolution, since the US have a veto vote in the SC."
Really, is that how it works? How interesting. I always thought the UN had to actually *authorize* a war, not just fail to condemn it after the fact.
Had (for instance) the USSR blown away the eastern seaboard of the US with nuclear weapons, and then vetoed the condemnation and immediate declaration of war, wouldn't that, by your logic, be perfectly okay by the UN? Does a veto allow you to invade anyone you please, any time you please?
Jester
If their had been an SC resolution saying the war was false, then one could say that the UN as an organization were against the war. There is, of course, no such resolution, since the US have a veto vote in the SC."
Really, is that how it works? How interesting. I always thought the UN had to actually *authorize* a war, not just fail to condemn it after the fact.
Had (for instance) the USSR blown away the eastern seaboard of the US with nuclear weapons, and then vetoed the condemnation and immediate declaration of war, wouldn't that, by your logic, be perfectly okay by the UN? Does a veto allow you to invade anyone you please, any time you please?
Jester