Talk:United Nations Charter
From Academic Kids
An event mentioned in this article is a June 26 selected anniversary
Why is it particularly relevant that the US ratified the treaty? - Khendon 10:10 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
Aha! I know, being the poster of that sentence. The relevance is that as the law of the United States the President of the United States is bound by the terms of the Charter; thus, the Bush doctrine is arguably in violation of law. (However, it is just a law and can be modified by statute, as the current (Ocober 10, 2002) resolutions being debated in Congress might do) User:Fredbauder
Does the sentence I just added suit you, then? - Khendon 13:55 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
No, the United States is not a parlimentary democracy, thus attempts by the executive branch to act in violation of a United States statute have a significance different from an action by a prime minister. As far as nations being obligated by treaty, that's good in theory, but only in a few countries, and probably only in the United States could that form a complaint in a court that might eventually be granted relief. I think as a true statement, which conveys significant information, it should stay absent some overriding concern requiring its deletion. User:Fredbauder
Then that point should be explicitly made, rather than just an arbitrary-seeming statement about one particular country. - Khendon 08:01 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
- Because it never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, thus staying out of the League of Nations, which was ultimately a fiasco? (Or looking at the previous text, probably just because the poster was looking at the legal aspect from a US point of view.) --Brion 10:20 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
UN Charter question moved to Wikipedia:Reference Desk by Mattworld
Bush Doctrine in UN Charter
I think the issue of the Bush Doctrine and the UN Charter is a valid subject, but it doesn't belong in an article about the UN Charter, but rather in the already existing article about the Bush Doctrine.
- I concur. I'd rather see an annotated text of the charter, if it can be reproduced here, and a history of its development and noting nations that haven't ratified it. Mkilly 07:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If the issue is nations ignoring the UN Charter, there are many, including most of the major powers, not to mention that the US and all of NATO simply bypassed the UN to wage war in former Yugoslavia, because they knew Russia would veto it in the Security Council. If there is no reasonable onjection, I intend to move the material. Cecropia 06:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree NATO was not set up to be indecisive when it came to such matters as yugoslavia. so it it were neccessary for them to get UN approval it would be rediculous to think that they could then be able to react swiftly to any such matters.
- I agree, but the material was still here, so I've moved it and made a link there. SpaceFrog 17:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
