Vladimir Putin Quotes

We would like UN resolutions to be enforced, including on Iraq.

International Law

International law has no simple enforcement mechanism.

One of the problems with the Security Council is that there are vetoes, and they do not allow us to do what might be justified from the point of view of sanctions.

U.N. Security Council resolutions are only as effective as their enforcement.

I do not support individual countries taking military action against another country because of its human rights record, or subsequently justifying taking such action on human rights grounds.

The just response to this terrible event [9/11] should be to go immediately to the world community, the United Nations. The rule of international law should be marshaled, but it's probably too late because the United States has never done that; it's always gone it alone.

International economic and political sanctions on Iran, as crucial as they may be, are only an initial step, and must be dramatically increased.

Russia holds a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. This is a privilege, and it is a responsibility. Yet in Syria and in Aleppo, Russia is abusing this historic privilege.

Because it started as an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIL has long been subject to U.N. sanctions, and all countries have a legal obligation to freeze its assets and prohibit its business dealings. But countries around the world need to do more to make these sanctions work.

The United States should not frame its policy options in terms of doing nothing or unilaterally sending in the Marines.

At the U.N., I routinely encounter countries that do not want to impose sanctions or even to enforce those already on the books. The hard-line sanctions skeptics have their own self-interested reasons for opposing sanctions, but they ground their opposition in claims that America uses sanctions to inflict punishment for punishment's sake.

India has a legitimate right to becoming a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

What is the point in punishing a country?

We should forcefully call out China whenever it violates international standards.

The rogue states have to be told that there are lines that cannot be crossed.

Defending human rights should be an important objective of foreign policy, and that, too, will sometimes be hard to reconcile with an economic agenda, especially when it comes to dealing with rich but repressive players like China and Russia.

Enforcement is a very important part of the administration strategy. We think that even our friendly nations should live by the rules, and if they don't, we will intend to enforce things against them.

In 1963, the U.N. Security Council declared a voluntary arms embargo on South Africa. That was extended to a mandatory embargo in 1977. And that was followed by economic sanctions and other measures - sometimes officials, countries, cities, towns - some organized by popular movements.

I am a multilateralist. I am deeply convinced that there is no other way to deal with global challenges than with global responses, and organised in a multilateral way.

If the Australian Government were to associate itself with the United States attack on Iraq, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, then we'd put this country at risk.

Ending Iran's nuclear threat and bringing it into the international community of law-abiding nations is one of the most pressing U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Britain must be the champion of international law.

The U.S. has made a lot of mistakes all over the world... look at Iraq. The country that makes such mistakes do not have the moral right to teach the world.

As a foreign company and offshore entity we will not be obliged to comply with the rules of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and countries like that.