The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization that was established to enhance international co-operation. One of its key principal organs is the Security Council that is mainly concerned with decisions and resolutions for peace and security. It is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries and has the power to make biding decisions that member states have agreed to carry out under the terms of charter article 25. The Security Council is made up of 15 member states; consisting 5 permanent members and 10 non members. It is only the permanent members who have the veto powers over UN resolutions. Australia, a temporally member, was elected to serve a two year term in the UN Security Council from 2013. Its election seemed to indicate a new era of international influence.
Currently Australia is serving its two year term in the UN Security Council. Its performance in that position can be evaluated from their past actions in the past one year they have been in power. From my point of view Australia has not proven to be ill-equipped in making contributions in the UN Security Council. In the past one year Australia and other Security Council members have had several issues to deal with especially the recent crisis in Egypt, Ukraine and Syria just to name a few. Australia’s experience during its first year on the Security Council can be considered to prove that it is not actually ill-equipped and that it is acting in means aimed at achieving the aims of the UN Charter.
Australia in the United Security Council has shown in its commitments in enhancing the adherence of the international law to ensure there is no conflict and ensuring peace is maintained. This is evident from its continued support for the Internation...
... middle of paper ...
...an laws to implement United Nations Security Council sanction policies. It has also held in building UN’s capacity to control terrorism in all ways in line to the Charter. The Australian government has identified key elements to deal with international terrorism. It has advocated for multilateral and regional engagement where issues relevant to maintaining security are addressed.
All the same it has also been noted that Australia has a small weakness in its current position in the Security Council in that it has been used as a puppet by certain member nation especially in making security decisions. Compared to its other roles it has played in the Security Council that is just small loophole that should be closed. From the above illustrations, it is evident that Australia has all capabilities to meet the objectives of the UN Security Council in line with the Charter.
There is a high degree of complexity in this question. Should Australia, as a mature nation, be taking part in moral issues around the world even though they are not happening on our doorstep? Do we ignore the deaths in Bosnia, the starving millions in Biafra and Ethiopia, the worldwide environmental issues raised by Greenpeace? What is the purpose of developing alliances, both economic and military, with other countries? At stake, in all of these issues, is our desire for a better world to live in.
However, this doesn’t entirely suggest that we don’t have certain attributes about us that make us a good nation because we undoubtedly do but not very often, in this case, the bad outweighs the good. In many ways, you could argue that refugees and climate change only make up small sectors of our reputation but those are only to name a few and there are defiantly more issues within Australia than those such as the mistreatment of aboriginals, budget cuts to foreign aid etc. Overall I strongly stand by the opinion that Australia does not act morally good as a global
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
• Amnesty International: Australia- governments dismissal of UN criticism undermines hard earned credibility in human rights diplomacy.
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
A more recent foreign policy priority is the promotion of the nation as an active and responsible global citizen. Success in this area is measured by our response to human rights, terrorism, third world debt, and drug issues. Australia already has a well deserved international reputation because of the work of previous foreign ministers, e.g Bill Hayden and Gareth Evans on human rights.
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
every nation in the world belongs to the United Nations. The United Nations has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.The United Nations is not a world government though,and it does not make laws.
There are many laws that helped establish the Department of Homeland Security, however, there are three primary laws. These are the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132). Each of these laws plays a key part in the Department of Homeland Security.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...
The United Nations has made many achievements since the agreement made in 1945. The efforts of the UN helped end the apartheid in South Africa allowing the citizens of South Africa equal participation in the Elections of April 1994 followed by a consensus in choosing a form of government. 90 percent of children in developing countries attend school and 60 percent of adults in these countries can read and write thanks to the UN and the struggle to improve education in developing countries. Over 300 international treaties have been created through United Nations efforts to strengthen international law. These achievements and many others encourage people like myself to promote and praise the United Nations.
The Human Rights Commission (2014) state that ‘ Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945. Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration.’ An advantage of introducing a Bill of Rights would be that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. A disadvantage would be that the Bill of Rights would interfere with Australia’s international obligations, for example the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The State Library of New South Wales (2011) states that ‘Australia is currently party to seven of the nine core international human rights.’ If a Bill of Rights was introduced into the Australian legal system, it would mean that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be protected by the Australian legal system. Although this would also make it harder for Australia to continue to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments in their legal system. A recommendation would be to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments before considering the idea of a Bill of Rights.