Top Law Schools

Both seem like pretty worthless and ineffectual bodies

Answer contained in premise

baal hadad wrote:Both seem like pretty worthless and ineffectual bodies

1. They seem like that to you.
2. They are both well known and give you good exit options.
3. They have specific authority that is unique to each body, and the matters that they each work on are, generally, unique to each.
4. At least for the UN, you may get to travel a lot.
5. You will have a rare work experience of having colleagues from a wide variety of countries.
6. They are institutional representations (I don't know if this is a good way to put it) of a particular ideology that appeals to many people. Add: I don't think ideology is really what I'm looking for here, it's more like a world view that international cooperation is necessary, but I don't feel like considering this language further.
7. At least from the UN employees I know, generally good working conditions (e.g. pay and benefits).

These are just the things I could think of right now.

Flanker1067 wrote:

baal hadad wrote:Both seem like pretty worthless and ineffectual bodies

1. They seem like that to you.
2. They are both well known and give you good exit options.
3. They have specific authority that is unique to each body, and the matters that they each work on are, generally, unique to each.
4. At least for the UN, you may get to travel a lot.
5. You will have a rare work experience of having colleagues from a wide variety of countries.
6. They are institutional representations (I don't know if this is a good way to put it) of a particular ideology that appeals to many people.
7. At least from the UN employees I know, generally good working conditions (e.g. pay and benefits).

These are just the things I could think of right now.

That's all fine and good if you can live w that fact that the UN has never solved anything

The ICC is also a joke the only thing war criminals are afraid of is other people w guns

baal hadad wrote:

Flanker1067 wrote:

baal hadad wrote:Both seem like pretty worthless and ineffectual bodies

1. They seem like that to you.
2. They are both well known and give you good exit options.
3. They have specific authority that is unique to each body, and the matters that they each work on are, generally, unique to each.
4. At least for the UN, you may get to travel a lot.
5. You will have a rare work experience of having colleagues from a wide variety of countries.
6. They are institutional representations (I don't know if this is a good way to put it) of a particular ideology that appeals to many people.
7. At least from the UN employees I know, generally good working conditions (e.g. pay and benefits).

These are just the things I could think of right now.

That's all fine and good if you can live w that fact that the UN has never solved anything

The ICC is also a joke the only thing war criminals are afraid of is other people w guns

I know a lot more about the UN than the ICC, so all I will say about the ICC is that the purpose of criminal courts is not solely deterrence. As for the the UN "not solving anything," I would say that it is an uninformed judgment, as they help people around the world every day. It also reminds me of this quote,

"If your life's work can be accomplished in your lifetime, you're not thinking big enough"

-Wes Jackson (I guess?)

I'm a fan of concrete results as much as anyone, but still have respect for this work.

.

brazleton wrote:Last thing we need is shitty posters emulating DF-style threads. And the whole UN does nothing schtick works for Fox News and discussions of large security matters, but for narrower issues, many of which are relevant to some law students' interests, you just come off as uninformed.

Yeah this is a pretty dumb schtick.

.

Remember the Durban conferences where people just got up there and ragged on Jews

Real productive stuff

Probably a pretty sweet deal even if the institution itself is absurdly ineffectual.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Probably a pretty sweet deal even if the institution itself is absurdly ineffectual.

Although that's true and ordinarily I'm all for getting free money and whatnot

People who want to work for these orgs love to talk about "making a difference"

baal hadad wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Probably a pretty sweet deal even if the institution itself is absurdly ineffectual.

Although that's true and ordinarily I'm all for getting free money and whatnot

People who want to work for these orgs love to talk about "making a difference"

Biglaw summers talk about how great the firm's pro bono program is too.

baal hadad wrote:Remember the Durban conferences where people just got up there and ragged on Jews

Real productive stuff

How many UN lawyers do you think it takes to organize a conference? The answer is 0 (Ok, there's probably one low level assigned to review contracts). You should learn a little about what you are talking about before you go on a rant.

Also, your contention that most people who work there claim that they want to make a difference is wrong. Some think that way and some don't, the same way that some people on the Hill think that they make a difference, while others just like the work (or benefits, pay, prestige, whatever).

Add: I'll give you an example since you seem pretty clueless. Some UN lawyers specialize in immigration, and they analyze claims and assist people in making asylum claims. The reason the UN does that is because people in some places don't have access to lawyers or the knowledge to do this themselves, but they are in serious danger. Try telling people whose lives were saved because they got out of a dangerous situation that the UN is "ineffectual," and those lawyers that they make no difference.