| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33805 Activity:high |
9/28 A concise summary of why the Iraq war is an illegal war, how "serious
consequences" clearly did not include an invasion of Iraq:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUS303A.html
(The U.S. proclaimed the UN had made itself irrelevant by not voting
to make the invasion legal.)
\_ There is no such thing as an "illegal war"
\_ Did you read the URL before you posted this? Let me give you
an example. Iraq taking over Kuwait was an illegal invasion.
If you applied the UN Charter to WW2, the U.S. declaring war
against the Axis was legal; but Japan and Germany's preemptive
invasions / wars were illegal.
\_ "Legal" is a definition between a unit and their gov't
- wars are engagements between gov'ts.
\_ See definition of "international law" below.
\_ Was Bosnia an illegal war?
\_ What about the French-American War of 1798? Or the war of 1812?
\_ Both of these "diversionary" responses totally miss the point.
\_ Formed by your head?
\_ Are you the Dumb Jock?
\_ To all threads above:
Main Entry: international law
Function: noun
: a body of rules that control or affect the rights of nations in
their relations with each other
(e.g., the UN Charter embodies some international law, particularly
if you are a member of the UN. E.g. 2, being a signatory of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and building nukes is a violation of
international law - however, if you are not a signatory, or withdraw
and build nukes you didn't violate any laws)
\_ Dear Motd Reader:
Yes, a dictionary always defines foreign policy. Thanks for
asking!
\_ The PP is correct in that there can be such a thing as an
illegal war. Whether or not that is signifigant in the grand
scheme of things is another debate.
\_ Since I thought you would have trouble with a dictionary
definition, I also provided some hand-dandy examples for the
skeptical ... "international law? I thought there was no
'body of law' between nations! That's some funky idea!"
PP is correct in that the debate should not be over whether
it's an "illegal war", because it is, but whether it matters
in the grand scheme of things.
\- hello, you may wish to read the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
BTW, something like the USA enforced "no fly zones" are
also probably "illegal". --psb
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact
I am psb's motd google engine!
\- you have done well.
\_ Also mention the EU, WTO and World Bank. Even Republicans
seem to acknowledge the existence of those international
legal entitites. |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUS303A.html In an early draft, many members of the UN Security Council rejected the expression all necessary means which would have included the use of force. In UNSC resolution 1441, there was a provision for serious consequences to be in place in the event that Iraq had been in material breach of the resolution. Colin Powell has claimed that serious consequences is UN code for the use of force. There was a clear understanding, even formally expressed by Russia, France and China, that serious consequences did not authorize the automatic use of force and that before any authorization of force would be sanctioned, a further UN Security Council resolution would be necessary. In addition, under the Convention of the Law of Treaties, terms in international instruments must be interpreted in their ordinary language meaning; in no way in ordinary language would serious consequences, even in the context of the UN Security Council resolution, be equated automatically with the use of force. One serious consequence could have been to take the issue to the International Court of Justice to enable the judges to carefully assess the legitimacy of the documentation presented. As has been reported recently, not only has there been misrepresentation of documents from US British intelligence, but also there have been forged documents on the purchase of uranium. The US has misused Article 51 before and redefined what constituted self defence under Article 51. Again, the interpretation of this Article and its applicability would be best assessed by the International Court of Justice. Several specialists in International Law have requested the US to go to the International Court of Justice to seek an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of force in Iraq. As usual, the US is willing to condemn others as rogue stated defying the rule of international law, but the US fails to seek the advice from the International Court of Justice which is a specialized organ under the United Nations, and the US has over the years failed to accept both the jurisdiction and the decisions of the International Court of Justice, Iraq should appear before the International Court of Justice and ask for an emergency decision to prevent the imminent war on Iraq, and if the US invades Iraq, the US should be compelled to appear before the International Court of Justice for engaging in an illegal war in violation of the rule of international law, and the Charter of the United Nations. Joan Russow (PhD) Global Compliance Research Institute 1 250 598-0071 Copyright Joan Russow 2003. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact Because the Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, it did not perish with the League. The pact is a binding treaty under international law and, from a technical legal point of view, it remains in force as part of the supreme positive law of the United States, under Article VI of the United States Constitution. However, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norm that the use of military force is presumptively unlawful. United Nations Charter, which states in article 2 paragraph 4 that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". right of collective defense when using military action and have also been prohibited from annexing territory by force, although at times these justifications may seem by some to be straining credulity. |