Are UN declarations binding law?
952536
If I were to write an essay on this subject, I think my thesis would be something like this:\n\nThe weight of the international decisions that the UN declares are determined by the measures the the UN is willing to take to uphold these decisions.  Power is determined by perceived influence; in other words, if the UN is viewed by the rest of the world powerful, then they are, but if their decisions are continuously ignored and there are no consequences, then the power of influence is taken away.\n\nI know it's worded messy... but I'm not the one that has to write the essay.  I would just go off of word play and influence.\n\n~Goodluck
357555
No, it would violate several treaties.  Here is the main one:\nhttp://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH454.html
605124
UNO, United Nations Organization
549351
Any country is free to leave. Some have. And later come back.\n\nOf course, it doesn't appear to be necessary. You don't have to pay your dues, you can override UN decisions, not pass their bills or motions, and just generally humiliate them by pretending that they don't exist when it's inconvenient.\n\nWell, okay, only one country can do that.
892445
The United Nations' Universal declaration of Human rights contains that passage.\nhttp://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
552138
PREAMBLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER\n\nWE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED\nto save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and\n\nto reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and\n\nto establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and\n\nto promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,\n\nAND FOR THESE ENDS\n\nto practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and\n\nto unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and\n\nto ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and\n\nto employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,\n\nHAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS\n\nAccordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
95869
Contracts that are legally binding by law are valid regardless of what language they are written in. There are other requirements for a contract to be binding (i.e., both parties must have consented, and have the ability to consent under the law) yet language doesn't affect the binding nature of valid contracts legally entered into by both parties.  Yet for them to be submitted to a court that would require that the contract meet any guidelines established by the Courts in the jurisdiction. This may be that they be in English. If that's the case they would have to be translated, and most the translation will have to be notarized.
648985
Laws bind within the territory.  Laws from one place do not attach to the person when the person leaves the jurisdiction.\n\nThere are some obvious exceptions, for example, when one state recognizes the jurisdiction and acts of another, like marriage.
28230
This is an interesting question. International law is seemingly in the process of being written. It is tough to decide what really is a violation of international law.\n\nThis also brings up the point of the idea of whether country's are sovereign or not. Is a country bound by laws made by an International group?
915725
Actually, there is not anyone or anybody, that has binding power over the U.S., but it is on a voluntary basis that the U.S. could bring the dispute to the United Nations, or to the International Court in Hague, and then the U. S. could agree to be bound under whatever was decided.\n\n For example, for action against Iraq, Bush wanted to just go ahead and act against Iraq; but some people in his administration asked that Bush go through the United Nations so, that it has some type of world policy platform. BUT, the U.S. is not under any obligation to obey the United Nations at all. It is a voluntary agreement.
770608
International laws and treaties apply when they are adopted (ratified) by the nations. Until then, they are just recommendations.
544512
Why couldn't the UN? Not only did the UN not try to stop it, the UN authorized it!
33663
The United Nations is a very necessary organization on many levels.  Any place that attempts to foster communication between so many diverse member states is necessary.  Their other works like UNICEF, UNDP, UNIFEM etc. do much to improve the living of millions of people around the world.
1145796
With the latest reports out of Iraq and across the world, it is evident that the United States has broken many of the U.N. charter rules.These include torture and the basic rules of war. I know that this is an unpopular choice, but sometimes the correct response is not always the most popular.
997882
On this list are 243 entities considered to be countries. This corresponds to:\n\n\n\n\n202 sovereign states: \n\n\n191 member states of the United Nations (UN).\n\n1 state with general international recognition but not UN membership, governed by the Holy See (a UN permanent observer), the Vatican City.\n\n1 newly independent state, recognized by a growing number of UN member states including all permanent members of the Security Council, widely expected to gain UN membership in the near future: Montenegro.\n\n\n9 states lacking general international recognition, none UN members, that customary international law nonetheless defines as states under the Montevideo Convention: \n\n\n1 state, not a UN member since late 1971, recognized by 25 UN member states and currently with de facto international relations with most others, the Republic of China (popularly referred to as Taiwan). \n\n1 state, recognized by 46 UN member states but never admitted to the UN itself, with most of its claimed territory under military occupation, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Western Sahara. \n\n1 state, recognized by 92 UN member states and the Holy See but never admitted to the UN itself, with only partial de facto control over any of its claimed territory exercised through the Palestinian National Authority (a UN permanent observer), the State of Palestine in the Palestinian territories. \n\n\n6 de facto independent states lacking any significant measure of diplomatic recognition from other states: \n\n\n1 de facto independent state, diplomatically recognized by no UN member states except Turkey, Northern Cyprus. \n\n5 de facto independent states, namely Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Pridnestrovie, Somaliland, and South Ossetia, all recognized by no UN member states. \n\n\n36 inhabited dependent territories: \n\n\n3 external territories of Australia (Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island). \n\n2 overseas countries in the Kingdom of Denmark (Greenland and Faroe Islands). \n\n\n5 (overseas) communities of France:\n\n \n1 sui generis (unique) community (New Caledonia). \n\n4 overseas communities (Mayotte, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Wallis and Futuna). \n\n2 overseas countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba and Netherlands Antilles). \n\n\n3 dependent territories of New Zealand: \n\n\n2 states in free association with New Zealand (Cook Islands and Niue). \n\n1 overseas territory (Tokelau). \n\n\n16 dependent territories of the United Kingdom: \n\n\n3 Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man). \n\n13 overseas territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (and its dependencies Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia). \n\n\n5 unincorporated territories of the United States: \n\n\n2 commonwealths (Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico). \n\n2 organized insular territories (Guam and U.S. Virgin Islands). \n\n1 de facto organized insular territory lacking an Organic Act (American Samoa). \n\n\n5 areas of special sovereignty: \n\n\n4 special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (Åland in Finland, Svalbard in Norway, as well as the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau in the People's Republic of China). \n\n1 UN protectorate inside the de jure territory of a sovereign state (Kosovo in Serbia under UN interim civilian administration).
560577
Yes it's true. Fifa: 207 UN: 191\n\nCheck details and You will get it right:\nhttp://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/na/index.html\nand\nhttp://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
1006922
NO IT CAN'T, BUT THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THE UNITED NATIONS CAN SHOW HOW FREE IT IS, BY SIMPLY ALLOWING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY OF DIFFERENT IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT WITHOUT INTERUPTING.EXAMPLE IF YOU CHOSE H3LL FINE IT DOES'NT MEAN ANYONE ELSE CREATED IT FOR YOU.THAT'S ALSO LIKE SAYING IF YOUR READING YOUR BIBLE AND YOU WIND-UP AT THE PEARLY GATES IT DOES'NT NECESARILY MEAN YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DEAD, OR ALL ANGLES...DIFFERENT TIPS FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS.