I would like to gather some input on the following hypotheticals for a little side project I am working on. By the way, this is based on a real series of cases issued by an international court recently! (to be disclosed later)
Hypo 1:
Country A invades Country B. For purposes of helping to visualize this hypo, lets say Country A is the USA and County B is Canada. The US unlawfully invades Canada but only takes over Quebec, where they set up an unlawful US colony. The rest of Canada continues to be governed by the Canadian national govt. The US begins committing human rights violations in Quebec against Quebecois, but the Canadian govt can do nothing to stop them because of the presence of superior US military forces in occupied Quebec. Instead, after brief fighting, Canada "gives up," concedes to the US, and tries to negotiate with the US to normalize relations. Legally, who should be responsible for the human rights violations in Quebec?
A) The US, for invading Quebec and committing human rights violations
B) Canada, because by NOT finding them liable, leads to bad intl human rights policy because all nations should always do their utmost to use whatever means necessary to stop human rights abuses and Canada did not try hard enough
C) both US and Canada, for both reasons above
Why?
Hypo 2:
The US invades Quebec and sets up an unlawful US colony. The rest of Canada continues to be governed by the Canadian national govt. The US begins committing human rights violations in Quebec against people living in Quebec which the Canadian govt does nothing to stop, even though it could attempt to do so. The Canadian govt does nothing to stop the human rights violations because the majority Canadian govt wanted to eradicate the minority Quebecois people anyway. Legally, who should be responsible for the human rights violations in Quebec?
A) The US, for
invading Quebec and committing human rights violations
B) Canada, because by not doing anything to prevent the human rights violations by the US, basically acquiesced and allowed it to happen.
C) both US and Canada, for both reasons above
Why?
Hypo 3:
The Quebecois revolt against Canadian rule and set up an unlawful separatist nation. This new government then begins persecuting its residents and the government of Canada does nothing
to stop it. Who is liable for these human rights violations?
A) Canada because the "separatist Quebecois" are not a distinct entity but still lawfully Canadian, and Canada has failed to protect its own citizens
B) Both Canada and the new separate nation of Quebec
C) Only the new govt of Quebec - if they can be apprehended - for committing human rights violations against Canadians in Quebec
D) No one, because Canada is not responsible for crimes committed by the separatist Quebec nation and Quebec is an unlawful entity
Why?
Hypo 4:
The Quebecois revolt against Canadian rule and set up an unlawful separatist nation. This new government then begins persecuting its residents and the government of Canada tries to stop it but cannot because the separatist forces are too strong. Instead, after brief fighting, Canada "gives up," concedes to Quebec, and tries to negotiate with the Quebec to normalize relations. Who is liable for these human rights violations?
A) Canada because the "separatist Quebecois" are not a distinct entity but still lawfully Canadian, and Canada has failed to protect its own citizens
B) Both Canada and the new separate nation of Quebec
C) Only the new govt of Quebec - if they can be apprehended - for committing human rights violations against Canadians in Quebec
D) No one, because Canada is not responsible for crimes committed by the separatist Quebec nation and Quebec is an unlawful entity
E) Canada, because by NOT finding them liable, leads to bad intl human rights policy because all nations should always do their utmost to use whatever means necessary to stop human rights abuses and Canada did not try hard enough
Why?
Hypo 5:
The govt of Canada and separatist Quebecois begin bloody fighting on the physical territory of the province of Quebec after Quebec declared its independence, with numerous human rights violations committed by both sides and absolute chaos in Quebec. Who is liable for these human rights violations?
A) Canada because the "separatist Quebecois" are not a distinct entity but still lawfully Canadian, and Canada has failed to protect its own citizens
B) Both Canada and the new separate nation of Quebec
C) No one, because the fighting has rendered the territory of Quebec "lawless"
Why?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
The answer in each case is, of course, the UN. If the UN hadn’t been so fucking lazy, impotent, and incompetent, and had it not sat back and claimed to hold the moral high ground while sitting back and watching millions of people suffer human rights abuses, it could have (and would have) prevented all these messes.
But that’s not what you were looking for, I’m sure.
In my opinion, the perpetrators of illegal acts are the sole parties responsible for those acts. (Outside parties may hold partial responsibility for negligence or other reasons, but let’s keep this simple.) Therefore, my answers are:
1) A. This one’s easy.
2) A. Easy.
3) C. This one’s a little trickier since the entity “new government of Quebec” is a tad difficult to define. The individuals involved, however, are quite easy to finger. Who are the aggrieved going to sue for a couple $million apiece? Damned if I know, or even care. Maybe if they didn’t have such stupid gun control laws up there the people could’ve shot the bastards and prevented this whole fiasco.
4) C. See above.
5) B.
How’d I do?
Regarding your commentary on the UN, I tend to agree with your immediate reaction but arrive at that conclusion with many caveats. The UN does a very good job with many of the things it does, particularly in the provision of health and human services (given the limited resources it has). Considering that this is what the vast majority of what the UN actually does on the ground (beyond meetings), the UN deserves support from all nations for its humanitarian services.
Corruption and lack of oversight does occur in UN operations as it does any other big bureaucracy from time to time (ie oil for food, etc.), which rightfully stains the reputation of the UN. However, because the UN is
Ho. Ly. Shit. I typed out a looooong response, only to see it randomly disappear. Sonofacrapper. I’ll try again, but I won’t be able to replicate it, I’m sure.
Your restaurant analogy is badly flawed. The UN isn’t the waitress, it’s the owner/manager. The UN is exactly the individual in the restaurant responsible for keeping the place running. The UN, therefore, is entirely responsible for the restaurant’s incompetence.
The U.S. is your waitress. She’s a my-way-or-the-highway, bossy bitch. She is fat, loud, and gaudy, and she flaunts and revels in her excesses. When the other incompetents in the restaurant don’t do their jobs, she says “Fuck you all!” and does their jobs for them. She could leave the restaurant, but she’s at the only restaurant in town and her life goal is to feed people. She makes sure nobody is hungry, and she’ll do whatever it takes to achieve that end.
The cooks, busboys, dishwashers—they all resent her. The owner/manager fears her. But they all know one thing for certain: without her, the restaurant would collapse. Whether they like it or not, they need her.
Some of her methods are unorthodox. The cooks demand that the burgers be grilled (although they can’t agree on exactly how); the waitress microwaves them. The busboys never break a plate; the waitress sweeps all the dishes off a table into a wash pan, chipping a few here and there. The dishwasher dries all the dishes; the waitress blasts them with a hose and lets them air dry. And sometimes if the waitress sees a hungry, emaciated vegetarian wandering the streets, she will go right out, grab him, and force him to eat hamburgers until he’s full. Those patrons are always a little pissed off at first—it isn’t fun to be force fed a food you don’t care for, after all—but in the end they go home happy, satisfied, and they always thank the waitress.
And folks keep coming back to the restaurant, in spite of the boobery of the other employees, and because the waitress is so effective at what she does.
There are a lot of great things on the menu at the UN Cafe. But the fact is, the only food that ever actually gets served is the waitress’s microwaved hamburgers on slightly chipped, slightly water-spotted plates. Until the owner/manager gets his act together and forces his employees to do their jobs, or until the employees decide on their own to do their jobs, the only way to get fed in this town is through the waitress. Love her or hate her, there are a lot fewer hungry people on the streets today thanks to her.
Au contraire mon frere! Your analysis appears to contradict itself when it comes to analogizing the STRUCTURE of the UN. The UN is not the manager but the waitress. To be a manager implies that the UN has actual authority to enforce its will on the cooks, which it does not have. Do you think Kofi Annan has any power to force the US or China to do what they don
You contradict yourself, Mr. T. To wit: “That is why the UN is the sum total of its members
Au Contraire Mon Ami! The waitress is expected to deliver the product
“The waitress is expected to deliver the product
Er..I think this *cough* “debate” has run its course. OK so anyway. The answers are: C, C, A, A and E, and A. However, the dissent (that I agree with) in “Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia” would argue that it should be: A, C, A, unknown (this is the real interesting scenario here), and A.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.