read_connect(); //$GLOBALS[ezoic_db]->read->query("use 17things"); ?>

Why should the United States comply with all United Nations resolutions?

I have to do a research project for school, and have no idea where to start. My partner and I have to do the pros and cons of agreeing with the United Nations resolutions. I’m doing the pros, and am not sure where to start. Any suggestions?

Related Items

11 Responses to “Why should the United States comply with all United Nations resolutions?”

  1. ounceoflogic said:

    There aren’t any pros.

  2. Christian said:

    Pros: Everyone in the United Nations is happy with the U.S.

    Cons: If the U.S tried to dominate all the time, the chances of a nuclear war would increase dramatically. No one wins a full scale nuclear war.

  3. Aaron W said:

    So we don’t piss of the UN.

  4. Mike said:

    agreed, why should they?
    the united states is a bullshit country which sets rules they choose not to follow. praise dicklick chainey

  5. Spinoza said:

    UN is a world body and all the member nations are bound to obey and respect the UN resolutions, and the all the countries in the world are signatories to the UN Charter when it was signed, so it is mandatory on every country to respect and follow the UN Charter and resolutions.

  6. ♪♫D Tran♪♫ said:

    I think you should look at some of the cons; those could give you some ideas.
    You might also want to think on specific categories.

    I’m not sure why we should, but they have a big influence on much of the world politics so…

  7. drufob said:

    We should not agree to UN resolutions. They undermine our freedom, our sovereignty. The only reason Obama would sign any UN resolution,is he wants to be the ruler of the whole world.

  8. Andrew's girl said:

    Cons: so that other countries in the UN, will not think of the United States as a country who won’t comply with what the rest of the free living World does, and that they also won’t think that the U.S. is following thier own rules and will ignore what the rest of the other countries want.

    Pros: for example, the U.S. gets first say about what countries in the U.N. or the world are able to have Nuclear weapons and who need to get rid of them (unlike the U.S. who have the biggest nukes).

  9. Pat said:
  10. Adamo said:

    Because international law has been around for hundreds of years and it’s not going anywhere, despite what many Americans wish.

  11. kelly said:

    First let’s talk about the most important ones, the ones from the Security Council. Those are, according to international law, legally binding for all member states. A good reason for the US to follow those resolutions, therefore, is that they are legally binding (although of course there is no real way to enforce compliance). Another good reason that the US should comply with all SC Resolutions is that the US has a veto right over them. That means that no Security Council resolution can be passed without US approval (or abstention). Why not comply with something you agreed with?

    Now let’s go to the more difficult category – the resolutions passed by the General Assembly. First of all, these resolutions are not legally binding. That means that, according to international law, nations do not have to follow them. But they do serve as a good guideline for world opinion. Why should the US comply with these resolutions? First of all, most of them make good sense. Let’s look at the last couple of resolutions as examples:
    The most recent one was passed on Nov 5th and “urges Israelis and Palestinians to conduct credible, independent investigations into war crimes in Gaza.” Who committed which war crimes could be debated endlessly, but seriously – what’s wrong with a resolution urging independent investigations?
    On Nov 2nd the GA (General Assembly) passed 2 resolutions: one in support of the international criminal court (which the US has strongly opposed in the past) and one in support of the IAEA (international atomic energy agency, which monitors the global transfer of nuclear material and technology). The ICC resolution is also a debate in and of itself, but there’s no reason the US shouldn’t want to support the IAEA resolution.

    Those are just a few examples of resolutions from the GA: Some of them are controversial, many are in line with US interests anyway.

    Now let’s talk about something called “soft power.” Soft power (a term developed particularly by Joseph Nye) is the ability of a country to get other countries to do what it wants without coercion. You can think of it a bit like this: if someone you don’t particularly like comes up to you and says “vote for me for class president or else” then are you going to want to do it? probably not. Now let’s say it’s a friend coming up to you, one who has done you favors in the past, and he/she asks “hey, could you please vote for me for class president? I promise I’ll listen to your concerns.” Will you do it? Probably. That’s the general idea of soft power. If you build up enough of a positive reputation, others are going to want to do what you want without you having to use force. The way to build up the positive reputation is – very generally – by listening to what others want and helping them. While this may sound idealistic, Nye was anything but an idealist. Soft power is a realist argument for what looks like idealistic actions.

    Hope that helps!


[newtagclound int=0]


Recent Comments

Recent Posts