The Global Tribunal on Climate Change
From some reports the details about the upcoming climate tribunal of the United Nations which the United States will be attending in Paris there is little if any information being released. This is by order of the United Nations. The tribunal which is considered a treaty according to some information is a bad idea for the United States. 1st and foremost other countries regardless of any agreements or treaties do not have jurisdiction over the laws governing our country. The United Nations is at it again. For one thing the United Nations exists to help resolve issues between countries it is not a governing body over all countries. In addition not all countries belong to this organization.
The draft of this agreement/treaty is a disaster for the independence of countries. Each country have their own set of laws and processes which no other country has the right or authority to take them to court if it is felt they violate their individual principles. The same applies to the United States. We are an independent country and no treaty or tribunal has the right to tell us what to do or take us to court when our actions violate their principles.
The tribunal as it is called in the draft agreement/treaty is a tribunal of climate justice for which the intention is to take countries to court for non-compliance for details which will be established in the treaty. One point is clear even if the President signs this treaty it is subject to the approval of the Senate according to the Constitution. Countries which sign this treaty will be expanding the reach of the U.N. which is contrary to its charter. The Preamble and the objectives of the U.N. are provided below:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to 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
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
While the purpose of this treaty appears to address climate issues it must be pointed out from some research that some countries will not sign this agreement unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations. Some indications whether true or not indicate that South Africa has led this movement but it was instigated by China and India. This agreement if signed would cede national sovereignty to the United Nations by those who sign it. Another point to make is the words being used appears to present it as something else than the intended purpose. National sovereignty should never be ceded to the United Nations. It is a body of member nations to help resolve issues between countries not a governing body to enforce treaties and take countries to court and levy fines for non-compliance.
This is not the first time climate issues have been raised by the U.N. for an organization called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) raised concerns in 2011. It was an attempt to create similar action and at the last minute the details were stripped in the U.N. document.
As you can see in the preamble of the United Nations provided above and how they want to achieve their purpose it says nothing about being a governing body over countries around the world who sign an agreement or treaty. The purpose of the United Nations is noted below under article 1 and it says nothing about a the organization of a court in this case a court of climate justice and this agreement/treaty is in direct conflict the charter of this world organization.
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
- To maintain international peace security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
It is clear by all the information presented above that this treaty should not be accepted by the United States or any country who wants to maintain their national sovereignty. Another point which is well worth mentioning is that is well known China has a bad record in relation to the environment. China is not the only country which has climate issues and for any country to subject themselves to a world court of climate justice in addition to losing it national sovereignty. If this treaty is signed by the President it should be soundly rejected by the Senate according to the Constitution and our rights as an independent country.
More by this Author
Today the connection between the government and the public is strained at best and the amount of money which the government now spends in comparison to its income raises many questions. There are critical decisions...
Climate change has not been reliably proven to exist and just because political leaders across the world have signed an accord does not mean it is based on reliable facts.
Ethics environment 50 years ago is much different than today. It was a totally different environment without computers and cell phones. Businesses for the most part knew their customers.