Alexis Tsipras Quotes

We insist that the international community cannot depend on any country with weapons of mass destruction which has relations with terrorists, and which allows itself the luxury of not respecting the law and of defying the international community.

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

The time draws near, when a radical change must take place for the whole world in the management of diplomacy.

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

Working as a Foreign Office lawyer in 2003, I was less worried by the quibbling over U.N. resolutions on Iraq than the coalition's capacity to effect positive change.

The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)... Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

As long as the problem of world reconstruction remains the center of interest for all nations, blocs having similar attitudes will form and operate even within the League itself.

Nations, like individuals in a state of nature, are equal and independent, possessing certain rights and owing certain duties to each other.

During the three decades of its existence, the effectiveness of the United Nations has, on the whole, tended to decrease, particularly in the field of peace and security and, more generally, all issues in which the developed countries feel they have important stakes.

Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.

The law of nations is naturally founded on this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little injury as possible, without prejudicing their real interests.

The U.N. is much more than the case of Iraq.

International institutions are composed of governments. Governments control their own military forces and police.

The purpose of the United Nations should be to protect the essential sovereignty of nations, large and small.

There is no reason why agreement on particular points should not be both possible and advantageous to the so-called neutrals and to one or more of the blocs, either existing or in the process of formation, within the League of Nations.

U.S. society doesn't want to play the role of international policeman.

The clever, albeit fragile, coalition against terrorism brought together by the U.S. government might be able to advance the transition from classical international law to a cosmopolitan order.

I am convinced that when the history of international law comes to be written centuries hence, it will be divided into two periods: the first being from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century, and the second beginning with the Hague Conference.

Great powers reserve the right to police bad actors in their neighborhoods.

Is multilateralism nothing more than a dodge for simple inaction?

I very much hope that the United States will finally... realise that they can no longer act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner in every part of the world and that they need to cooperate to resolve issues.

Everyone should respect the sovereignty of the EU countries.

The need for a permanent status resolution approved by Congress is made even more clear to me because of my experience as a former Under-Secretary-General of 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.

The most tragic paradox of our time is to be found in the failure of nation-states to recognize the imperatives of internationalism.