Questions of Sovereignty and International Institutional Effectiveness on a Global Scale: The United Nations and the International Courts
MetadataShow full metadata
The United Nations and the International Court of Justice have been called into question regarding their true effectiveness in alleviating human rights violations and denouncing obvious atrocities around the world. It is evident that such peace-keeping efforts by these bodies are impossible to achieve in a world guarded by sovereignty and different sets of laws and norms. It is imperative to address that peacekeeping missions, United Nations resolutions, and International Court of Justice/International Criminal Court cases are oftentimes flawed, overeager, and conflict with too many political actors and entities. It is important to note the complex intersection between ensuring human rights are granted to the worldwide community but also, respecting the boundaries of countries and their right to rule as they see fit. In no way is genocide, blatant disrespect of humanity, or any violation of human dignity, excused and condemned by countries worldwide. However, involving United Nations peacekeepers or the International Court of Justice is inappropriate and a direct violation of the principles of sovereignty and country borders. Additionally, dissimilar types of leadership and governance exist worldwide, so finding a solution to a country's problems while appropriately acknowledging their leadership is such a task that no worldwide body of delegates should be partaking in or attempting to accomplish. Alternatively, verbal discourse and international diplomacy is a better means by which to voice global concerns. This is in contrast to that of outlandish, infeasible United Nations resolutions, Security Council measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace..” Clearly a broad state peacekeeping deployments, and useless International Court of Justice cases which are a mockery of country sovereignty and invasive to other countries’ policy and law.