Why does the UN not come up with Uniform set of laws for all countries?

@LadyDuck I know. But it is not fair that we do not give recognition to their contribution. Because of them, we are up to date about impending issues.

It generates such tied down feeling in respect of Daniel Pearl. :(

@vandana7 Those journalist who decide to go to "dangerous" places know that they risk their life... Daniel Pearl is not the only one.

Don't you think it should have a say?

@vandana7 They SHOULD have a say, but they don't. The constitution of each country is different.

@kobesbuddy I agree.

@vandana7 Without mercy and compassion is what I learned ages ago now and I have lost "friends because I have said so" but I don´t give a fig anymore. Once a true story, one enemy cut the ropes from his enemies hands because they all wanted to kill the said person. He said what do we gain by killing them? Only the same old rubbish over and over. Just the way I see it of course not everyone is going to agree. I hear you though based on my ideas.

@lovinangelsinstead21 Exactly. Killing is more like tennis ball. From this court to that court, and from that court to this court. Grrr.

Not everybody thinks like me. :(

Shouldn't it? I mean, it is us for the planet, and us for humanity against aliens, isn't it?

@kanuck1 UN merely drafts basic laws. Then vets country specific laws along with jurors and agencies such as UNICEF, Amnesty International, etc.

@vandana7 What assurance would we have that they would use that power for the good of mankind?

My suggestion was like ... All terrorists should be hanged and their cases concluded within 2 months of their arrests. Surely by prolonging their cases we let things blur and the burning issue ceases to be as important as when it is still in focus across the world.

@LindaOHio It is not a situation of eye to eye. It is someone who has been so brainwashed that he cannot comprehend the beauty of god's creation anymore. So yeah, he is likely to go around and kill more. It is better to kill one person than let him kill more. That is the way I see it.

I am left to wonder why. It is not control. Rather it is going to be standardization so that ease of doing business and ability to trust one another increases. Then again should a country so desire ..it can choose to have its own set of laws too, just control on how it relates to International folks perhaps.

@porwest My contention is... we are not touching cultural aspect. We are only focusing on main things. For example, fair trial of foreign citizen in some International court of justice. Then basic mercantile law so that there are no misunderstandings among international communities as things go global. I think this is long overdue. Then laws related to rapes, acid attacks, human traffickers. How are these gonna affect culture? Amnesty international anyway makes noise about some things.

@vandana7 Each nation has its own culture for one. In the United States in particular the law of the land is the Constitution. It would be entirely plausible that something the UN might impose could be unconstitutional. Going back to the culture thing, religions also have an impact on what one considers right and another considers wrong. In Muslim culture for example it is perfectly okay to deem women as submissives, and bar them from education, driving cars, etc. This would be deemed unacceptable here. There is also no such thing as a 'standard right.' Everyone believes something is right that another thinks is wrong. How do you decide who's culture is best, and who's right is rightest? (That last sentence is questionable. lol)

I agree. All nations gotta have equal votes.