United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

An organization part of the General Assembly, the agency was establish in 1997. It is a combination of two organizations, the United International Drug Control Program, and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division stationed in Vienna. It incorporates the International Narcotics Control Board. In 2002, the division was renamed. It's current director is Yuri Fedetov, a Russian Ambassador.
The UNODC core goals are to better address illegal drug trafficking, international terrorism, criminal justice, and corruption. It is only through support, guidance, and research that it achieves these aims.
Every year, the UNODC releases The World Drug Report. The report estimates the amounts of drugs being produced and tracks trafficking. It tracks the use of heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and stimulants. It tries to identify the trends in the illegal drug market.
The committee has signed various drug treaties, all in hope of stopping transnational organized crime.
The committee has had various campaigns to educate the general public. They attempt to inspire younger audiences to avoid drugs. One of its more famous campaigns is the “Think AIDS.” Because drugs spread HIV/AIDS, they want to stop people from injecting drugs. Its slogan is “Think Before You Start...Before You Shoot... Before You Share.” The largest contributors to the UNODC's budget are nations that promote a zero tolerance drug policy like Sweden.

[Sources Pending]

The Internation Court of Justice: An Evaluation

The United Nation’s International Court of a Justice is the main judicial committee of the UN, whose major purpose is to settle disputes between states and provide legal advice to other international courts and UN bodies. The court is based in the Peace Palace, located in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Court of Justice, or the ICJ, is made up of fifteen judges selected from the Permanent Court of Arbitration by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. No two judges may come from the same country, and the judges collectively represent the major systems of law, commonly regarded as common law, civil law, and post-communist law. On certain occasions, the court may divide itself into chambers, usually of three to five judges, to resolve an issue, as it has done several times throughout its relatively short history. The Charter of the United Nations first formed the ICJ in June of 1945, with the intention of resolving international conflicts in order to adhere to the United Nation’s key goals of preventing war and breach of human rights. From the court’s beginning, the International Court of Justice has faced many cases to preside over, including several high-profile cases with plenty of media coverage. One such case was Nicaragua v. The United States of America, a 1984 case in which Nicaragua accused the United States of violating international law by supporting the Contra guerrilla group in their rebellion against the government and by disrupting trade in Nicaragua’s harbors. After hearing the arguments, the court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, awarding compensation from the United States. More recently, the International Court of Justice recently heard a case between Georgia and the Russian Federation over the war crimes and ethnic purges committed by Russia during the 2008 South Ossetia War. The ICJ has yet to announce their ruling on this case. The International Court of Justice, interestingly enough, does a fair job of having a wide diversity of judges and impartial decisions. Unfortunately, the court is also notorious for its incredible inefficiency. Even if rulings are made, the reparations or other compensations often go unpaid. In the case Nicaragua v. United States, for example, the United States got out of compensating the Nicaraguan government by using its veto power on the Security Council to block enforcement of the ruling by the United Nations. Additionally, the court can only hear the case if both parties agree to submit to the court’s decision. Adding further to the court’s dismal productivity is the fact that organizations or individuals cannot be tried. While the court is certainly full of competent and capable judges, the United Nations Constitution, as well as other bodies on the UN, limits its potential to truly solve the important issues.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

http://www.icj-cij.org/

UN Intervention in Kashmir

Kashmir is a Himalayan region in South Asia. Since the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, and the ensuing Indo-Pakistani War, ownership of Kashmir has been disputed. Currently three countries hold claim to certain parts of Kashmir: Pakistan claims the whole of it to be part of the nation of Pakistan, China lays claim to the Aksai Chin, or the west part of Kashmir. Currently, this land is occupied by India. As of this time, there is a major military conflict going on between India and Pakistan for this land.
As mentioned before, this conflict began in 1947, right after both India and Pakistan gained their indepence from Britain. Pakistani tribesmen and unofficial military combatants advanced into Kashmir. The UN, which had been pleaded to by intervene by India, passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. This Resolution, passed by a Security Council consisting of Argentina, Colombia, Belgium, Syria, Canada, Ukraine, and the Five Powers, said that Pakistani units must withdraw from Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held by the UN in Kashmir where the people of the region would decide which nation they would go to. This Resolution, although passed by the Security Council, did not stop the still maturing nation-state of Pakistan from advancing its military. The years passed by, and the fighting faded out but never really ended. In 1965 to 1971, fighting erupted again and India pushed Pakistan out of the country. In 1989 again, Pakistani soldiers infiltrated the region. This almost erupted into nuclear war, but U.S. President Bill Clinton intervened.
In 1947, the Security Council's solution to the Kashmir problem, a solution that had the potential to end fighting between India and Pakistan forever, was too idealistic. The U.N. believed that the conflict was one of nationalism and the interest of both of the nations was to govern over people most like them. As can be seen from the consequences, this is not true. Both nations simply wanted the land for its natural beauty and resources. The driving forces were economic rather than political. Thus, a resolution that should be proposed would be to divide the resources equally between the two countries. This would be passed by a new and improved Security Council, one that holds military power and will punish any nation that will break the resolution. Each nation would gain an equal amount of the economic value proposed by an impartial committee, with environmental factors taken into consideration. Since the people of Kashmir have not spoken up yet to say what they feel, they are clearly divided on this subject. Such an action would ensure that both nations will stop fighting, thus saving the lives of many young soldiers from a meaningless death, and would also be a step towards a more peaceful world.