Quote:
Originally posted by directfiesta
Huuummmmm ... Let me think .... What do countries do .......
Do they have an organisation.... Huuuum.... I think there is a building in NY....... Hummmmmm, probably to store servers.....
Ohhhhh! Just found it. We make a proposal to a group of countries and we get their approval. Then our war operation is legitimate.... I think it is called UN... not sure tough
|
What makes the UN THE de facto organization that decides the legitimacy or illegitimacy of military action?
If it is, why have so many countries in the UN been involved in military conflicts without it's approval including the US, UK, USSR, and China?
Which conflicts of the literally hundreds since the founding of the UN were legitimate? If there are hundreds of conflicts that occured without UN approval and only a handful that occured with it, doesn't that make the necessity of the UN's approval a sort of silly idea?
Note: there is NO UN resolution AGAINST the current conflict in Iraq. That would make it more illegitimate but it is clearly a matter of degree. The UN attempted to pass a resolution againt the USSR's invasion of Hungary and Russia just vetoed it. They exercised their veto power "legally" and I suppose that made it legitimate. Correct?
There is not much history AT ALL of countries getting PERMISSION from the UN to go to war. Where does this idea of needing international approval attached to a concept of "legitimacy" come from?