Jeremy Bentham Quotes

International law governs relations between independent states. The rules of law binding upon states therefore emanate from their own free will.

The United Nations Charter is not a social science experiment. It is a treaty.

Insofar as international law is observed, it provides us with stability and order and with a means of predicting the behavior of those with whom we have reciprocal legal obligations.

The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a situation of periodic lawlessness is to make statesmen responsible to the law.

International law has no simple enforcement mechanism.

The world is full of nations that are part of the community of nations that don't respect rights.

If you say that your national law allows you to do something, it is fine as long as you do this inside your own territory. As long as you go international, you really have to be sure that there is an international law which you respect and which you follow.

The Czech Republic is a dynamic United Nations Member State, active on the Human Rights Council, contributing to the peaceful settlement of disputes, and helping other countries to achieve a democratic transition.

Today, the United Nations is a protection racket for the enemies of freedom...for despots.

Nations have lost their traditional exclusive jurisdiction over their treatment of their citizens.

We must face the fact that the United Nations is not yet the international equivalent of our own legal system and the rule of law.

Many global solutions still require the binding force and permanence that only treaties can provide.

China itself has said repeatedly that they will and have been conforming to international law.

We could try and establish a world in which the great and the powerful adhere to that international law which they require ordinary mortals to adhere to. In other words, there is one international law, and even America and even Russia and China and Japan must adhere to it, and Australia must adhere to it.

I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law.

My point was very simple, and it was that it is absolutely absurd for the United States of America to continue to urge us further down the line towards a federal superstate when the U.S. has not even signed up to the U.N. Convention on Human Rights.

Britain must be the champion of international law.

There was an implicit conviction that the UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.

There are both things in international law: the principle of territorial integrity and right to self-determination.

The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission.

Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that I am prime and sole minister in this country, am I, therefore, prime and sole minister of all Europe? Am I answerable for the conduct of other countries as well as for that of my own?

There is a movement to get an international criminal court in the world, voted for by hundreds of states-but with the noticeable absence of the United States of America.

We shouldn't discuss the world of tomorrow in terms of becoming a balance to the United States. The real issue is whether the United States will define herself as part of the U.N. system-or not.

The problem with the United Nations is that while democracy within nations is the best available form of government, democracy among nations can be a moral disaster - especially if some nations are not democracies.

So, the international community are all the countries that are important: the United States definitely everywhere; the European Union because it is very important, and also, they do show a great deal of international responsibility; and then the local players.