st treaty review conference in 1995. But according to Locke, the UN must "determine all differences according to the established law." According to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel is in direct conflict with the established law. Thirdly, the UN must have the power to enforce the law. I believe this is the most important of the 3 for without the power to enforce, the other 2 are meaningless. I feel too, that the UN can fall short in this category. In this case, all the UN can really do is support a special representative to urge Israel to gain the treaty and to report on progress before 2005. According to Locke, Israel would be likely "make good their injustice," with proper Execution from the United Nations. The only question which remains is, does this special representative hold enough power on behalf of the UN to enforce its established law. The answer remains to be found. John Locke holds outstanding insight into the nature of states actions in dealing with security issues. In fact, it is so outstanding that he has essentially predicted the exact course of action taken by the United Nations to force Israel's signing of the treaty. As long as the UN continues to follow Locke's ideas of "man in the state of nature," then it will be a successful deterrent of war, as well as a promoter of peace. Unfortunately, my main objection (and I think Locke would agree) with the UN, is that it is rarely indifferent due to the United State's overwhelming power and influence in its decision making. ...
