Friday, January 09, 2009

Having Standing in the Court

It would seem to be a pretty basic principle that if two parties are in conflict, they have a serious disagreement about something; then a resolution of that disagreement would of necessity involve the participation of the two parties. You might have arbitration. But that means that the parties to the dispute agree to let a neutral third party evaluate the situation and then impose an agreement. The two parties agree that they will abide by the arbitrator's decisions.

Or, you could have a situation in which a third party holds compelling authority over the disputants. Tired of the bickering, the mature, objective and powerful authority lays down the law forcing the the combatants to comply with a dictated solution. No problems there, either. Fail to comply and the third party enforces the decision.

Neither of those situations appear to exist with regard to Gaza. That's why this is so amazing:

UN Says: Make Them Obey Me

The UN, assuming some sort of mantle of pseudo-authority, votes in the Security Council to dictate a cease-fire to Israel and Hamas. Without preconditions of having accepted such authority of the toothless diplomats of Manhattan, the two contentious parties simply ignore the resolution. Surprised?

Among the fourteen members currently which voted to mandate behavior by the two parties are such as Burkina Faso (?), Libya, Vietnam, Croatia, Costa Rica and Uganda.

Wow, how could Israel resist such powerful world forces? And, where the hell is Burkina Faso?

The conclusion is that while Gaza/Hamas and Israel have "standing" in the court when it comes to reaching an agreement on their disputes, these other nations in particular and the UN in general have no valid jurisdiction. And they definitely have no enforcement authority.

No comments: