J. Mark Dion Quotes

How do you deal with these countries which have happily signed all these treaties and are just as happily violating them…. They have signed solemn treaties agreeing not to do what they are doing.

American foreign policy must uphold the sanctity of international treaties. That is the cornerstone on which all relations between nations must rest.

I don't know that there is much the United States can do except work with the international community.

When the E.U. and the U.S. agree, other countries follow.

Well, there's been plenty of ultimatums, and one thing that we better be very clear is that we can't continue to have the kind of defiance of the United Nations, the defiance of the international community that we've had.

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

International law has no simple enforcement mechanism.

I would rather propose a bureau somewhat similar to that which we have in the Universal Postal Union.

In short, it may be said that on paper the obligations to settle international disputes peacefully are now so comprehensive and far-reaching that it is almost impossible for a state to resort to war without violating one or more solemn treaty obligations.

The following year, after I had prepared my draft, the Conference of the Interparliamentary Union at The Hague decided to set up a special commission to study the problem seriously.

If I correctly understand the goal of American policy, one wishes Russia to be a partner.

Legislation that would withhold funding for the United Nations is fundamentally flawed in concept and practice, sets us back, is self-defeating, and doesn't work.

Probably the most useful thing I can do as secretary of state is to assist the president in adapting and renewing the transnational institutions that were created after World War II.

Ordinary citizens are obliged and, if need be, compelled by force to meet their commitments. But let higher obligations of an international order be involved, and governments repudiate them, more often than not with a disdainful shrug of the shoulders.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations.

In the United Nations, when China entered, we voted on the same position, and since then we have maintained the same position, that position has not changed.

We've talked to the Europeans about it. It's clear if those negotiations fail, then we are agreed with the Europeans that the next step is to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council.

Over many years, the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk.

Globalisation must have, as a critical component, international dispensation in the locality of U.N. institutions. It cannot be, and must not be, business as usual in the establishment and location of international institutions, especially of the United Nations.

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.

I think the American people, understandably, have sort of lost faith in the United Nations.

What makes the United Nations an appropriate source of legitimacy for intervention is that it is the only place where the claims of the strong are put through the test of justification in front of the weak.

Today's message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility.

Every government is in some respects a problem for every other government.

I don’t talk to countries that exhibit bad behavior.