Monday, February 4, 2008



I also agree with you that the other two agencies: United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) should be promoted to be more famous since they have actively played roles in the present world, but in contrast, they have not been promoted to be known like other UN agencies like the World Bank, the IMF, and so on. But the problem is that how can they be more successful and through which the UNEP has more power to make decision of placing sanction to the countries that do not have strong commitment or lack of responsibility of producing air pollution to the world environment as you mentioned?

I have read your part as a whole and I found out that you have given us an account of detailed and interesting history about World Food Program, but I think that you had better put foot note after each essential and quoted information because footnote gives more specific information, in which the information is involved. As for the bibliography, it does not express as detailed and specific information as footnote or end note do. Apparently, we do need both.

Well, I disagree with Bingbin Lu as well. I have compatible viewpoints as yours. Since having no compulsory jurisdiction, the court hardly performs well and effectively. Additionally, the law is supposed to be created or UN Charter ought to be amended in order to separate the power of the court and security council because the security council has too much power on the court, making it not an independent body.

Your writing is a bit short but it makes enough sense. That is why I do not have so many opposing ideas, only saying it would be much better if you added more sources and expanded your writing. In addition, I also expect that the Cambodian government would cooperate more with other NGOs agencies, especially ILO to improve working conditions and unemployment for all Cambodian improvement and development.

Oh, there are many scholars sharing different interesting points of view about the voting procedure. For me, I am not different from them, but the one I think is likely to occur is the suggestion for the P.5 to use their veto vote collectively meaning that veto any resolution need more than one veto vote so that the power of each member of the P.5 would be diminished. And the other recommendation of the voting dismantling the veto power is unlikely to take place as I do not expect the P.5 would make an amendment to the charter to totally abolish their veto power. As a consequence, if the above-mentioned voting will not be possible, the old system of voting is still keeping the same- just like everything is again in the hand of the P.5.

No comments: