No, they are the world legislative body.
Of course no country can be forced to follow the UN’s laws, but they are what we call “international law”.
If the UN don’t recognize you, you may be the only government in your country, and you may even be the legitimate one, nationally speaking.
But you won’t be internationally recognized as legally in charge of things like shipping lanes.
So that means that for a country to be legitimate, it has to be accepted by every member of the security council? You’re not a legitimate country unless Russia, China, and the US all like you enough? That’s BS.
That is how professors of International law usually define a legitime country, yes: by vote in the general assembly (not the security council). Like for example Palestine, which has been recognized for decades by the General Assembly.
I’m talking about the UN.
You’re talking about the UN Security Council, which is just one of many UN organs, has the very limited purpose of preventing a war between the original nuclear powers, and yes, where the permanent members have veto powers.
They do not have veto powers in the general assembly, which is a much more important UN organ when it comes to international diplomacy.
The Security Council can veto acceptance of new member states. Don’t try to tell me their vetos are limited to “preventing war between nuclear powers,” their positions on the Security Council grant them significant power and influence over what the UN does.
If adopted, the draft would have had the 15-member Council recommend to the 193-member General Assembly that “the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations”.
The General Assembly with no veto powers is the deciding body. They could act without a recommendation, as well.
An application for admission to UN membership must be approved by the Council before being forwarded to the Assembly, where the matter requires at least two-thirds support to pass.
The UN isn’t the world police, in case you didn’t know
No, they are the world legislative body.
Of course no country can be forced to follow the UN’s laws, but they are what we call “international law”.
If the UN don’t recognize you, you may be the only government in your country, and you may even be the legitimate one, nationally speaking.
But you won’t be internationally recognized as legally in charge of things like shipping lanes.
So that means that for a country to be legitimate, it has to be accepted by every member of the security council? You’re not a legitimate country unless Russia, China, and the US all like you enough? That’s BS.
That is how professors of International law usually define a legitime country, yes: by vote in the general assembly (not the security council). Like for example Palestine, which has been recognized for decades by the General Assembly.
Really?
From your link: “it obtained the status of a non-member observer State in November 2012”
I was wrong about that aspect, but they do still get veto power over admission of a state to the UN.
Yes, that is BS.I wasn’t talking about the security council at all.
You’re talking about the UN, where members of the security council have veto power.
I’m talking about the UN.
You’re talking about the UN Security Council, which is just one of many UN organs,
has the very limited purpose of preventing a war between the original nuclear powers, and yes, where the permanent members have veto powers.They do not have veto powers in the general assembly, which is a much more important UN organ when it comes to international diplomacy.
The Security Council can veto acceptance of new member states. Don’t try to tell me their vetos are limited to “preventing war between nuclear powers,” their positions on the Security Council grant them significant power and influence over what the UN does.
The General Assembly with no veto powers is the deciding body.They could act without a recommendation, as well.You are just factually wrong about this.