172
Brazilian President Lula criticises UN for failing to stop wars | New Straits Times
(www.nst.com.my)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
172 points (98.9% liked)
World News
50649 readers
2775 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That isnt really true, as most examples of what the UN does show. Conventions on all kinds of issues that are ratified are things that member states are technically obligated to adhere to, there just are few effective mechanisms to enforce them into it.
The international criminal court is probably the foremost example. A member state is not free to commit war crimes just because they want to, and all states are obligated to abide by the Geneva convention or face consequences for it. Although that is a convention that determines interactions between sovereign states, not interior issues.
But human rights conventions are also a similar obligation that member states are supposed to adhere to, and the UN is certainly capable of attempting to force member states to abide by them. Its just rarely effective. For example, the US refused to ratify conventions on labor organization rights over 70 years ago, and is obligated every year to answer to the UN why US citizens dont have those rights. In practice this means that every year the US tells the UN “because we dont want to give people those rights, our rights are good enough even if below standard” and then the UN can basically do fuck all about it simply because no one is going to go force the US government to comply. And since 99.9% of US citizens dont know or care that they lack labor rights that are considered human rights by the rest of the world there is no internal pressure. So the UN just has to let it go.
But that doesnt mean that on a technical basis that the UN doesnt have the authority to say the US is out of compliance when it is. And it doesnt mean that US sovereignty overrides international convention. It just means that in practice the US can flaunt international regulations on human rights. As do many other countries like Russia and China. The obligation exists, its just ignored
Right, that would be the kind of "collective action" that I mentioned... it doesn't have anything to do with preventing nations from going to war with each other... the UN doesn't have that kind of authority and never did.
I was taking issue with the statement “the UN was not intended to override the sovereignty of member nations” considering that in many respects UN convention certainly overrides national sovereignty. At least for smaller states that can be coerced as such
But even then, the idea that the UN was not intended to prevent wars is also false. That was basically the entire point of creating an international body before human rights and other focuses were ever in the conversation.
The League of Nations was invented as a result of WWI and the treaty of Versailles in the interest of preventing another world war. The precursor to that was the 1899 International Peace Conference “held in The Hague to elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare”
The whole, at least original, point of international governance is specifically to prevent conflict.
The goals for the UN as outlined at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference make that pretty clear, as peace are literally the first two aims of the organization: