06-13-2005, 06:00 PM
"Do you realistically feel that a resolution that includes all applicable endangered species is realistic?"
I'll bounce that question back with "do you realistically feel that a resolution for each individual endangered species is realistic?". And the answer, in my opinion, is of course "no".
The answer to your question is yes. It is not up to the UN to go into too much detail, because that would mean each detail requires a seperate resolution. A resolution offering general protection to endangered species is possible. The UN can condemn the hunting on endangered species, call for action, define endangered species broadly yet suitably or even mandate that the ecological wildlife in the NS world must be preserved.
For this reason, I am slightly sad that such a poor resolution passes, and I have used the "vote-breaking" vote to vote against this resolution (knowing, though, that this would have no influence on the end result).
I'll bounce that question back with "do you realistically feel that a resolution for each individual endangered species is realistic?". And the answer, in my opinion, is of course "no".
The answer to your question is yes. It is not up to the UN to go into too much detail, because that would mean each detail requires a seperate resolution. A resolution offering general protection to endangered species is possible. The UN can condemn the hunting on endangered species, call for action, define endangered species broadly yet suitably or even mandate that the ecological wildlife in the NS world must be preserved.
For this reason, I am slightly sad that such a poor resolution passes, and I have used the "vote-breaking" vote to vote against this resolution (knowing, though, that this would have no influence on the end result).