Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To make it suck less.

Melissia wrote:To make it suck less.

We've got our work cut out for us in that case.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Melissia wrote:To make it suck less.

We've got our work cut out for us in that case.

It isn't possible, but the attempt makes us feel good onthe inside.

Which is pretty much standard operating procedure for most of the West, no?

ChrisWWII wrote:Which is pretty much standard operating procedure for most of the West, no?

I think so, the French may have something different in mind though. You know how the French are...

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:The UN would be well within its rights to say that it recognises the rebel government as the government that represents the people. They wouldn't be wrong, either; the rebels control the vast majority of the country, and with it, the majority of the population, (though I may be wrong on that).

no they cant because of #1
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

If youre saying that a collective of nations can take away your nations sovereignity by vote then youre going against what the UN stands for.

@chris

LAW–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.
4. a system or collection of such rules.

Charter–noun
1. a document, issued by a sovereign or state, outlining the conditions under which a corporation, colony, city, or other corporate body is organized, and defining its rights and privileges.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a document defining the formal organization of a corporate body; constitution: the Charter of the United Nations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
http://www.unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=3

the United Nations Charter is agreed upon and enforced by its members.

the blinders arent flatttering on you

And the UN isn't a sovereing body, so its charter just defines how the organization works. Fair enough. It does not govern the ways nations interact. Nations can intereact without the United Nations.

If the UN Charter was strictly enforced by all its memebers than Iraq wouldn't have happened. Hungary and Czechslovakia wouldn't have happened. The Suez Crisis wouldn't have happened. The UN Charter is enforced when it is convenient for the enforcers.

Once again, you are making it seem like we should be supporting Gadaffi. Your logic is that since we must preserve all UN members sovereignty, we should support the lawful government of the state, which, you state, is Gadaffi's government holed up in Tripoli.

When I saw the threads' new title I thought it was a totally new thread and was about to post a witty comment on how he has already used that joke, sadly the title only changed :(

ChrisWWII wrote:And the UN isn't a sovereing body, so its charter just defines how the organization works. Fair enough. It does not govern the ways nations interact. Nations can intereact without the United Nations.

it doesnt govern how nations interact?

did you even read the charter?

ChrisWWII wrote:If the UN Charter was strictly enforced by all its memebers than Iraq wouldn't have happened. Hungary and Czechslovakia wouldn't have happened. The Suez Crisis wouldn't have happened.

the lapses in applying the law does not mean the law does not exist. And who said the US isnt being investigated for Iraq? theres an official inquest to it as we speak.

ChrisWWII wrote:The UN Charter is enforced when it is convenient for the enforcers.

This is opinion. I dare you to prove this.

ChrisWWII wrote:Once again, you are making it seem like we should be supporting Gadaffi. Your logic is that since we must preserve all UN members sovereignty, we should support the lawful government of the state, which, you state, is Gadaffi's government holed up in Tripoli.

stop putting words in my mouth. Prove that i said I support Gaddafi. What i said is that by law Gaddafi is stillhead of state and the rebels cannot be recognized just because a group of nations says so. and the UN will never do so because of #1

just because you want it to go a certain way doesnt make it fact

The UN doesn't govern how nations interact because it has no authority over them. In theory? The UN is a forum for dicussion to make relations between states easier, but it is not a world government directing how states interact.

I have already shown to you. It wasn't convenient to enforce the charter to greant sovereignty to Hungary, or Czechslovakia, or Poland. It wasn't worth it to enforce the sovereignty of the RoC. The UN enforces things only when its enforcers feel its in their interests to do the enforcing.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just following your logic through to its conclusion, which is something we can all disagree with. You argue that the UN has a solemn right to enforce a nations sovereingty, and that Gadaffi is the legal head of state of Libya, he is being attacked by rebels. To ensure Libya's sovereignty, under your ideas, we need to help Gadaffi ensure his states sovereignty.

My question to you know is how you think states like the horde of the Balkan countries that arose out of the collapse of Yugoslavia got formed. How? They declared independence, and often against the will of the naiton which continued to claim to own them the world recognized them as independent, and the original nation had to bow down and accept it. That's how things work. There is no court for admitting a new state to the world club. It's all about recognition, and the point remains that once the rest of the world recognizes the government in Benghazi, they will be the de facto leaders of Libya, no mattrer what legal position Gadaffi has.

Melissia wrote:To make it suck less.

By making it suck more? Because once we get involved it's not just about Libya it's about the USA and that definitely has the potential to make things worse than they already are.

Also if we are going to act as the world's police why just Libya?
All of the following are African wars, African civil wars, and US military operations in Africa. Now tell me which we should be involved in, which we shouldn't be involved in, and how many American lives are expendable in the name of acting as the world's police.

2001–present War on Terrorism
1997–present Islamic Terrorism in Egypt
2002–present Islamic insurgency in the Maghreb
2002–present Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
2006 Rise of the Islamic Courts Union
2007 - today Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara
2009 - today Islamist civil war in Somalia
2009 - today Taliban insurgency in Nigeria
2003–present War in Darfur
2004 - today Conflict in the Niger Delta
2004–present Central African Republic Bush War
2004–present Kivu conflict
2005–present Civil War in Chad
2007–present Second Tuareg Rebellion
2011-present Libyan civil war

Also please explain to me how we are going to occupy African nations while keeping the minimum number of troops required to fight a counter insurgency in accordance with the Army's counter insurgency handbook.

Bakerofish wrote:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

If youre saying that a collective of nations can take away your nations sovereignity by vote then youre going against what the UN stands for.

Sovereignty is a funny thing with many different conceptions, but the one consistent principle is that it depends on external recognition. The UN can, collectively, decide that they no longer recognize the sovereignty of a member, and thereby evict the member from the GA.

ChrisWWII wrote:The UN doesn't govern how nations interact because it has no authority over them. In theory? The UN is a forum for dicussion to make relations between states easier, but it is not a world government directing how states interact.

its not a government but is an body that establishes the rights and priveleges of its members. Members here is KEY

ChrisWWII wrote:I have already shown to you. It wasn't convenient to enforce the charter to greant sovereignty to Hungary, or Czechslovakia, or Poland. It wasn't worth it to enforce the sovereignty of the RoC. The UN enforces things only when its enforcers feel its in their interests to do the enforcing. .

you show me how you see it. your task is to prove it. i can agree with you but that doesnt make it fact.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just following your logic through to its conclusion, which is something we can all disagree with. You argue that the UN has a solemn right to enforce a nations sovereingty, and that Gadaffi is the legal head of state of Libya, he is being attacked by rebels. To ensure Libya's sovereignty, under your ideas, we need to help Gadaffi ensure his states sovereignty. .

it is not a RIGHT to enforce but to acknowledge that sovereignity of its MEMBERS and protect that sovereignity by being compromised by other members. You said UN needs to ensure Libya's sovereignity. You misunderstand. The UN cannot interfere with domestic disputes even if it compromises the sovereignity of the country. What it can do though is PREVENT the MEMBERS from doing anything to compromise a MEMBERS sovereignity.

My question to you know is how you think states like the horde of the Balkan countries that arose out of the collapse of Yugoslavia got formed. How? They declared independence, and often against the will of the naiton which continued to claim to own them the world recognized them as independent, and the original nation had to bow down and accept it

the old government had to surrender to the new. The power had to be transferred or taken or destroyed. The UN did not enforce this. Yugoslavia was a UN member and when yugoslavia dissolved the UN didnt have a hand in actively dissolving them. How they declared independence was not something the UN could make decisions on. What the UN did was prevent any members from making unjust interventions and when the new governments were formed and recognized they were then allowed to join.

the UN does not decide what makes a country. Individual countries recognize individual countries as such. The UN is basically a group of countries agreeing to not compromise each others sovereignity.

That's how things work. There is no court for admitting a new state to the world club. It's all about recognition, and the point remains that once the rest of the world recognizes the government in Benghazi, they will be the de facto leaders of Libya, no mattrer what legal position Gadaffi has.

yes there is no court that can officially recognize a sovereign state as this is mostly after a government has been established and reliant on the rest of the world recognizing them. UN or not. Youre insisting that all the rebels need to do is control a country to make the UN recognize the rebels as the new leaders. That cant happen if Gaddafi still has claims to power.

has he been officially deposed yet? no
has he stepped down? no
have the rebels wrested total political, economic and temporal control over Libya? no

can they? Yes if they can get Gaddafi to step down or take power in some way.

Can the UN just "award" control of a nation to another party? FETH NO

Can the UN declare who is a country or not? NO.

Can the rebels control the geography, establish independence from Gaddafis government, establish their own, protect their borders and build relationships with other countries and thus become a sovereign state?

YES. DEFINITELY EMPATHICALLY YES. But they will NOT be recognized as LIBYA. Theyll need to come up with a different name.

I think this is what you were getting at Chris but you were going about it the wrong way.

@dogma

They can evict a member from the GA but cannot deny a country's sovereignity as this is established and enforced by relationships with different countries. example: They can kick out Libya from the UN but they cant take away its sovereignity

Bakerofish wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:The UN would be well within its rights to say that it recognises the rebel government as the government that represents the people. They wouldn't be wrong, either; the rebels control the vast majority of the country, and with it, the majority of the population, (though I may be wrong on that).

no they cant because of #1
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

If youre saying that a collective of nations can take away your nations sovereignity by vote then youre going against what the UN stands for.

You keep using this sovereignty word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

When a state is sovereign, it means that outsiders do not control its internal affairs. I simply do not understand why you think that the UN saying who it's willing to deal with on an international scale is interfering with Libya's internal affairs. It isn't. That's not domestic, that's international. It's not the UN imposing a government from above, it's the UN recognising who has the power to deliver; who, in fact, is in power, and dealing with them instead of someone else. The kingmaking will have already been done by the time this comes about.

so youre saying that is a nation is sovereign then outsiders do not control its internal affairs

true

but youre saying that the UN can remove sovereignity from Gaddafi and award it to the rebels?

wtf?

#1 and #7 in the charter.

they cannot dictate or remove Libya's sovereignity nor can they award that sovereignity to someone else

all they can do is ensure that members dont do anything to compromise each others sovereignity. even if most of the members would like to do so.

Bakerofish wrote:

its not a government but is an body that establishes the rights and priveleges of its members. Members here is KEY

It's an international discussion forum. The UN has shown time and time again it's not afraid to violate sovereignty if ithas to. If you dispute this, I point to all the peacekeeping misions.....the UN does not exsist to facilitate sovereignty, the UN exists to facilitate international diplomacy.

you show me how you see it. your task is to prove it. i can agree with you but that doesnt make it fact.

I really don't know what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you're agreeing with me that the UN does this magical 'enforcement of sovereignty' thing only when its convenient for the enforcers....eh, that's good enough for me.

the old government had to surrender to the new. The power had to be transferred or taken or destroyed. The UN did not enforce this. Yugoslavia was a UN member and when yugoslavia dissolved the UN didnt have a hand in actively dissolving them. How they declared independence was not something the UN could make decisions on. What the UN did was prevent any members from making unjust interventions and when the new governments were formed and recognized they were then allowed to join.

They definitely didn't do so willingly. They begrudgingly accepted the de facto situation on the ground once the enforcers of the world decided they were going to recognize the newly independent nation-states. They did not surrender power. They had it wrested from their clutches. The world recognized the new nation state.

the UN does not decide what makes a country. Individual countries recognize individual countries as such. The UN is basically a group of countries agreeing to not compromise each others sovereignity.

You're right. INdividual states recognize individual states. So if most states recognizie the government in Benghazi as the government of the territory known colloquially as 'Libya', then they are the rulers of that territory. Glad we agree.

yes there is no court that can officially recognize a sovereign state as this is mostly after a government has been established and reliant on the rest of the world recognizing them. UN or not. Youre insisting that all the rebels need to do is control a country to make the UN recognize the rebels as the new leaders. That cant happen if Gaddafi still has claims to power.

Yep, that's all they need. They have internal sovereignty already, and all they need know is the external sovereignty gained by wide spread internationl recognition of the situation on the ground. IT can very easily happen as long as Gadaffi is in power...it'd just take the US and other key nations declaring that they are opening diplomatic relations with the Benghazi government. ONce again, I pose you...who's going to stop them if they choose that path?

has he been officially deposed yet? no
has he stepped down? no
have the rebels wrested total political, economic and temporal control over Libya? no

In order, So what? So what? and Yes. So what if he hasn't been officially deposed? It doesn't matter whether or not Gadaffi is still claiming to control all of Libya, if the de facto situation ont he groun says otherwise. It really doesn't matter what Gadaffi says, if the rest of the world decides to ignore him. Not to mention, the rebels control the largest oil refineries in Libya. Given the nature of Libya's economy, I'd say that counts as controlling the economic aspect.

can they? Yes if they can get Gaddafi to step down or take power in some way.

Or we could just ignore him, and let him rant all he wants while the rest of the world recognizes a new government...

Can the UN just "award" control of a nation to another party? FETH NO

Can the UN declare who is a country or not? NO.

No they can't, but they can recognize a new body as controlling a territory. In the modern world, if you get a seat in the UN General Assembly, you are generally considered to have gained external sovereignty. So no, it can't award nation states around...but it can recognize new governments as it sees fit.

Can the rebels control the geography, establish independence from Gaddafis government, establish their own, protect their borders and build relationships with other countries and thus become a sovereign state?

YES. DEFINITELY EMPATHICALLY YES. But they will NOT be recognized as LIBYA. Theyll need to come up with a different name.

No they won't. We'd just recognize them as the new government of the territory colloquially known as Libya, ignore Gadaffi's increasingly insane rantings (assuming he isn't dead by then), and go along or merry way. The government in Benghazi would send an ambassador to New York to sit in the chair behind the placard labeled 'Libya' and that'd be that. Gadaffi has no power, and the way things seem to be going, the West seems to be getting ready to open up diplomatic relations with the Benghazi government.


It is indeed what I'm going at, but it's you who are approaching it the wrong way. You seem to think that the de facto situation on the ground does not matter, when in fact it's all that matters. Gadaffi can sit in his palace in Tripoli all he wants, and rant and rave about how he is the rule of Libya...but if the rest of the world doesn't recognize him as suich, and deal with the government in Benghazi...why do we care what Gadaffi says?

Bakerofish wrote: so youre saying that is a nation is sovereign then outsiders do not control its internal affairs

true

but youre saying that the UN can remove sovereignity from Gaddafi and award it to the rebels?

wtf?

#1 and #7 in the charter.

they cannot dictate or remove Libya's sovereignity nor can they award that sovereignity to someone else

all they can do is ensure that members dont do anything to compromise each others sovereignity. even if most of the members would like to do so.

Gaddaffi doesn't have sovereignty. Libya has sovereignty. Libya is a sovereign nation. It is not interfering in Libya's internal affairs for the UN to refuse to recognise Gaddaffi as the ruler of Libya. If the rebels have de facto control of the country, then they are the ruler of Libya, and it does not even approach meddling in Libya's internal affairs for the UN to recognise this.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Gaddaffi doesn't have sovereignty. Libya has sovereignty. Libya is a sovereign nation. It is not interfering in Libya's internal affairs for the UN to refuse to recognise Gaddaffi as the ruler of Libya. If the rebels have de facto control of the country, then they are the ruler of Libya, and it does not even approach meddling in Libya's internal affairs for the UN to recognise this.

This. A million times this. Gadaffi does not have sovereignty, his government is just the government the world recognizes as in charge of Libya, a sovereign nation state. If the situation changes, and Gadaffi's government no longer controls Libya, then the UN has every right to recognize the de facto rulers of Libya, even if Gadaffi never gave up his power.

@ chris/warboss

are you guys purposefully ignoring fact just to prove me wrong?

point 1: It is not interfering in Libya's internal affairs for the UN to refuse to recognise Gaddaffi as the ruler of Libya.

its not??

First: the UN is not in the position to refuse or recognize the sovereignity of a country.
Second:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

if the countries of the UN refuse to recognize the current Libyan government in favor of the rebels they violate Principles 1 and 4

Youre positing this view:
IF SEVERAL COUNTRIES AGREE, THEY CAN REMOVE A COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT AND AWARD POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP

you seriously dont see whats wrong with the statement above?

Point 2: If the rebels have de facto control of the country, then they are the ruler of Libya

De jure and de facto:

De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects.

De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)
Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?

It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. That is, "No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty."

In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.

Rebels have de facto
Gaddafi has de jure

hence the conflict

and again... you CANNOT remove de jure status from Gaddafi just because everyone else agrees

the conflict is ONGOING

whoever wins secures Sovereignity

and as members of the UN, nations cannot do anything to back either side without just cause because it goes agains the CHARTER

this is a domestic dispute for power

outsiders have NO SAY on who holds the power or not

Saying your opinion often enough and loud enough does not make it fact






Automatically Appended Next Post:
predictions:

I will be once again called an idealist

People with counter my points without naming credible sources. no proof. just opinion and a warped view of international law with a huge democratic bias (even though not every UN member runs a democratic nation...but yeah)

laughtrip quote of the day:

"Gadaffi does not have sovereignty, his government is just the government the world recognizes as in charge of Libya, a sovereign nation state"

so if his government is the government, doesnt that make it the government?

Bakerofish wrote:Youre positing this view:
IF SEVERAL COUNTRIES AGREE, THEY CAN REMOVE A COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT AND AWARD POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP

You aren't listening to what we're saying if that's what you've gotten from our posts. The rebels, at the moment, have the majority of the power in Libya. If the trend continues, they will maintain that. They will be the de facto ruler of Libya.

Not because it was imposed externally, but because they brought it about themselves.

Recognising that the rebels have achieved that isn't taking power from Gaddaffi and giving it to them; they did it themselves. It's simply a recognition of that fact.

Bakerofish wrote:Point 2: If the rebels have de facto control of the country, then they are the ruler of Libya

De jure and de facto:

De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects.

De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)
Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?

It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. That is, "No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty."

In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.

Rebels have de facto
Gaddafi has de jure

hence the conflict

and again... you CANNOT remove de jure status from Gaddafi just because everyone else agrees

...Yes, we can. If Gaddaffi does not have de facto power, he isn't the de facto ruler, and is not sovereign. Given this, and given that the international community needs to deal with someone in Libya at some point, if the rebels have de facto control, there's no reason why they shouldn't be recognised as the ruler de jure.

Bakerofish wrote:whoever wins secures Sovereignity

and as members of the UN, nations cannot do anything to back either side without just cause because it goes agains the CHARTER

this is a domestic dispute for power

outsiders have NO SAY on who holds the power or not

At some point you're going to need to listen to what we're saying. The UN saying who it will deal with in Libya is not imposing government from above. Imposing government from above would be like invading, holding a vote, and then having a revote when the results don't go as planned.

If Gaddaffi is not the de facto ruler of Libya, and the rebels are the de facto ruler of Libya, and the rebels have the support of the majority of the population... then why should they not be recognised as the de jure ruler? The mind boggles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:"Gadaffi does not have sovereignty, his government is just the government the world recognizes as in charge of Libya, a sovereign nation state"

so if his government is the government, doesnt that make it the government?

There could be two governments in Libya. In fact, the second is in the making, right now.

One will be the government that has power de facto over Libya. One won't be, and will be illegitimate. Probably the latter will be Gaddaffi's.

im sorry i developed this sickness where i have difficulty listening to people who are factually and categorically wrong

de facto is NOT de jure

de jure is right to rule by LAW. Gaddafi gained his right to rule by a successful revolution

if the rebels overthrow him then YES they become de jure and de facto

and who the UN chooses to deal with does NOT dictate who controls a country

whats so hard to understand here?

Bakerofish wrote:im sorry i developed this sickness where i have difficulty listening to people who are factually and categorically wrong

de facto is NOT de jure

de jure is right to rule by LAW. Gaddafi gained his right to rule by a successful revolution

if the rebels overthrow him then YES they become de jure and de facto

Right. But if the rebels fail to overthrow him (entirely)? If Gaddaffi retains Tripoli and the rebels decide "Screw it, we don't need Tripoli", and ignore him because he's irrelevant?

Then what? Does Libya have no ruler de jure? Or, because the rebels have control of the entirety of the rest of the country and the oil, and are thus the de facto ruler, do we deal with them, because they have the power to make things happen in Libya?

Bakerofish wrote:and who the UN chooses to deal with does NOT dictate who controls a country

whats so hard to understand here?

What's so hard to understand about the recognition of a fact not being the imposition of that fact? The UN will deal with whoever has control. If Gaddaffi still has control of Tripoli but the rebels have control of everything else, then they will deal with the rebels, because Gaddaffi is not the ruler de jure if he is not the ruler de facto.

At least, according to what you posted.

theres just so much wrong in that post

warboss, im going to level with you. are you asking me these questions because you want really want to know or because youre just going to challenge my points?

are you just out to prove me wrong?

because right now youre warping everything to fit your point of view.

youre basing your entire argument over a misunderstanding of what the UN is, how it works, the difference between de facto and de jure and a misunderstanding of what i say. Your counterpoints are hypothetical scenarios to fit what you want to see.

unless you look and find a credible source to back up your claims, unless you understand what the UN does and what it can and cant do... youre not going to convince anyone

im willing to learn from you but you have to stop being so misinformed

I'll answer any of that when you show where I or Chris or anyone else was saying anything approaching "The UN can award power to whoever it wants."

ChrisWWII wrote:
If the UN says they're recognizing the rebels, who'se going to stop them?
---
Right now, the Libyan rebels have de facto control of the country. If we recognize them as the new government of Libya, then they are the new government of Libya. They have internal recognition of their control by most of the country, and if granted externatl recognition they'd have the qualities to make them a new state.
---
Being recognized as a country is a simple thing. You need internal sovereignty, external sovereignty and that's about it....the rebels hold internal sovereignty, and are asking for external sovereignty. Why shouldn't we give it to them?

if recognition is a requirement of sovereignity and sovereignity is power then i think i fulfilled your request.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
i can post more:

No they can't, but they can recognize a new body as controlling a territory. In the modern world, if you get a seat in the UN General Assembly, you are generally considered to have gained external sovereignty. So no, it can't award nation states around...but it can recognize new governments as it sees fit.

This. A million times this. Gadaffi does not have sovereignty, his government is just the government the world recognizes as in charge of Libya, a sovereign nation state. If the situation changes, and Gadaffi's government no longer controls Libya, then the UN has every right to recognize the de facto rulers of Libya, even if Gadaffi never gave up his power.

the funny thing is that Chris mentions all of this and maintains that the UN has no real power to do anything

The UN doesn't govern how nations interact because it has no authority over them. In theory? The UN is a forum for dicussion to make relations between states easier, but it is not a world government directing how states interact.

they have no power to govern how nations interact but they have power to recognize sovereign nations?

Bakerofish wrote:
they have no power to govern how nations interact but they have power to recognize sovereign nations?

What the UN considers to be a sovereign state has no bearing on what other states consider to be a sovereign state.

Though, strictly speaking, its only the GA that has no material power over international affairs, the SC does.

@dogma

chris maintains that the UN can simply recognize the rebels to give them status as rulers of the country

i was just highlighting the error.

the Security council can pretty much veto each other out though so theres a system in place to curtail most abuse

most

one of the reasons the US is not establishing the no fly zone is they know they have to get Russia and Chinas vote to make it legal

i dont think Russia and China want to give the US another foothold in the middle east

edit...i mean africa. sorry.

This is wierd. Regardless, there are signs that the Libyans themselves aren't keen on direct intervention.

@emperor
i dont think anyone is comfortable with that idea

gotta love their spirit though

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor
i dont think anyone is comfortable with that idea

Think of it this way, would the South or North in the US Civil War have accepted foreign intervention? The South was aided by the UK, but this is a lot different from the things being proposed here.