And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, having a lot of money doesn't quite make it any more legal to break international law. If the US indeed were to be charged with breaking international law, (not very likely), then there could be a number of different sanctions put into place.
How the UN would go about this, the US being a veto-wielding power and all, is another question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing.
[quote]<strong>If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least.
[quote]However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>This where your wrong.
from Chapter 2, Article 2 of the UN Charter:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[Etc?]
[quote]<strong>Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
...but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>No one has said that we have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war ?illegal?, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war.
[I am told that Japan has actually renounced its right to initiate war, and would only use military force in case of self-defence. But that is part of its U.S.-imposed constitution, not of its U.N. membership.
Or so I'm told.]
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war ?illegal?, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.
<strong>It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would require a straghtforward commitment by signatory not to renounce war under these or those circumstances. Yet that is not the case, not even for ?under certain circumstances?.
At best we have solemn declarations to avoid the initiation of war, and encouragment to settle disputes via the international institutions. But that is quite those ?New Year resolution?.
Mind you, since WW1 there were calls for outlawing war (hence making war illegal), they are yet to show any positive result.
<strong>The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?
[quote]I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least. <hr></blockquote>
Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.
[quote]<strong>In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Nobody ever said it was. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.
[quote]<strong>When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roughly the same thing?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. charter as the various W.T.O. commitments are treaties to which the U.S. is committed.
Were the act of war in itself, prohibited, the U.S., and a large numbers of other countries, could hgave been sued for the various time it resorted to it aince 1945 (what is more severely frowned up[on, however, is the forceful annexation of one member state by another as Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990).
Should the U.S. be sued for its alleged breaches, it might lose if it doesn't have a case.
[quote]<strong>Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't feel insulted.
[quote]<strong>Nobody ever said it [war] was [illegal]. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does states the member states whshall refrain from naked agression or otherwise offensive behaviours, but it does not deny them the right to act in an agressive offensive way.
An all out prohibition of aggressive war, would have been expressed explicitly and straightforwardly.
It is not.
[quote]When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the case you are referring to, is one of an outright iinvasion and annexation of one mmember state by another.
Had Iraq declared war to Kuwait and bombed it some, U.N. action would've probably been to brokering a cease-fire (possibly to Iraq's benefit) under the Arab League aegis so not to frown the local sensitivness. It's been known to happen before.
However, an invasion and annexation of Kuwait at a time the U.S.S.R. was melting, not to mention the threat to do the same to Saudia; that prompted an unusually severe reaction.
Very interesting read [ * ], and it points out that while initiating an act of war for reasons other than self-defence or upholding a U.N. mandate, ?inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?, it is not ?illegal?.
The Charter itself is not a prescriptive binding treaty pertaining to war initiation or its abolishment.
For any specific issue, a speocific convention is supposed to be drafted and ratified.
Take for example, the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade,
and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956:
[quote]The States Parties to the present Convention,
Considering that freedom is the birthright of every human being,
[?]
Article 1.
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926
[?]<hr></blockquote>
Here, the abolition and abandonment of a certain practice is, explicitly, clearly, and straightforwardly expressed (mind you, there are still U.N. member states which keep that particular practice, whether covertly or overtly, and with relative impunity).
I have no knowledge of any such specific binding convention or protocol limiting the right of sovereign states to resort to war, whether in whole or in parts.
[* Interesting read, but at the end of the day, rather academic, since it considers that even the 1981 destruction of the Osirak nuclear facility was a ?violation?. If one had to behave to the satisfaction of the learned Alison MacDonald and Rabinder Singh QC, one would end up dead meat.
It still fails to point to a specific binding abolition of the right of the initation of war, whether in whole or in parts.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>If there were a clause in the US Constitution that stated that New Years Resolutions were the 'supreme law of the land', then I might agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about ?outlawing? the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a ?New Year Resolution? is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.
And given the lack of a specific convention or protocol explicitly abolishing or limiting the right to wage war (see an actual commitment on the abolition of slavery in my above message to New), no country has committed to it, and it is therefore the law of no land
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
So, while a U.S. attack on Iraq without a U.N. mandate is not illegal, it does present several irregularities, which in the case of any small country with numerous opponents, would lead to ?strong condemnation? and other solemn declarations of the sort.
If one wants to do right [ * ], such condemnations are an insignificant nuisance.
Being a superpower and all, the U.S. could probably avoid even that nuisance.
[* To do what's right in one's own opinion, regardless of what I deem as ?right?]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
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 (..)
Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?
As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.
On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)
<strong>The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about ?outlawing? the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a ?New Year Resolution? is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTW: I believe the international regualtion of tobacco use doesn't come under the UN charter or the general assembly, but under the WHO. <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr21/en/"; target="_blank">link.</a>
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
<strong>All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
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 (..)
Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look at declarations replete with generalities as if they were specifically binding commitments, and interperet them as such.
Here's what would be required to serve your view:
Convention on the Abolition of Illegitiamte Warfare
[quote]Considering the right of all human beings to live in peace, safety dignity etc? etc?
Considering that below signed states wish to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered etc? etc?
Article I:
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of any initation of military operation, use of force, or threat thereof, unless acting upon a due mandate to that effect from the United Nations, and only to the extent that this mandate instructs, or acting on self-defence in a situation recognised as such by the United Nations.
And so on and so forth?<hr></blockquote>
But such a document exists only in my imagination.
And until backed up by such a binding document, specifically and clearly prohibiting the use of force except when and where authorised by the U.N., all the beuatiful prose quoted by you remain in the realm of wishful thinking.
[quote]<strong>As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That some countries and some experts view it thus hardly means that most do too, or that such view is in any way binding.
The material so diligently provided by you, makes it quite clear that it lacks any actual specifically binding commitment to make war prohibited under international law, whether in whole or in part.
[quote]<strong>On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The ?illegal occupation? is one of those myths which no matter how many times refuted keep going among the believers, like ?Mossadegh was democratically elected? or ?The USA propped the Taliban to fight the Soviets?.
When a war occurs, armies remain on the lines held at cease-fire, pending a peace treaty, after when the armies withdraw to the negociated and agreed-upon borders.
In simpler words: the winning guys get to occupy the losing guys till the the peace treaty, when that is signed, occupation ends.
[As happened in the cases of peace treaties between the Allied power and the formerly Axis powers, or between any other formerly warring countries having made peace.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.
You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.
You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.
You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm?
[quote]Originally posted by bunge (posted 03-04-2003 03:17 PM, this thread):
<strong>Murder by definition is illegal. Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide.
The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.
To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.
<strong>The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.
To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter, in itself, doesn't make war outside of U.N. approval illegal, no more than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in itself, makes slavery or genocide, illegal, under international law.
Specific conventions and treaty, binding to the signatory states, were required for those two practices to be made illegal.
No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.
For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, having a lot of money doesn't quite make it any more legal to break international law. If the US indeed were to be charged with breaking international law, (not very likely), then there could be a number of different sanctions put into place.
How the UN would go about this, the US being a veto-wielding power and all, is another question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing.
[quote]<strong>If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least.
[quote]However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>This where your wrong.
from Chapter 2, Article 2 of the UN Charter:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[Etc?]
[quote]<strong>Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>...but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No one has said that we have.
...but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>No one has said that we have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war ?illegal?, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war.
[I am told that Japan has actually renounced its right to initiate war, and would only use military force in case of self-defence. But that is part of its U.S.-imposed constitution, not of its U.N. membership.
Or so I'm told.]
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
To state that a certain treaty or charter makes war ?illegal?, means the states signing such commitment have renounced their right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.
<strong>It's just war that under certain circumstances that would be considered "illegal", not the complete right to initiate war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would require a straghtforward commitment by signatory not to renounce war under these or those circumstances. Yet that is not the case, not even for ?under certain circumstances?.
At best we have solemn declarations to avoid the initiation of war, and encouragment to settle disputes via the international institutions. But that is quite those ?New Year resolution?.
Mind you, since WW1 there were calls for outlawing war (hence making war illegal), they are yet to show any positive result.
<strong>The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roghly the same thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?
[quote]I was referring to your excessive use of the imperative in the discussion, which I find to be uneducated.
When I encounter a manner which I find uneducated, I make the observation, which I did. You can appreciate the constructive criticism, feel isulted, be indifferent and move one, I couldn't care the least. <hr></blockquote>
Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.
[quote]<strong>In case you hadn't noticed, nowehere was the act of war itself prohibited.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Nobody ever said it was. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.
[quote]<strong>When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war. </strong><hr></blockquote>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.
I'll provide one of my links again: <a href="http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf"; target="_blank">PDF</a>
<strong>
But that is quite those ?New Year resolution?. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If there were a clause in the US Constitution that stated that New Years Resolutions were the 'supreme law of the land', then I might agree.
The U.S. was sued several times in the W.T.O. and lost, I supposed it would be roughly the same thing?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>You don't see the fundamental difference between trade and war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. charter as the various W.T.O. commitments are treaties to which the U.S. is committed.
Were the act of war in itself, prohibited, the U.S., and a large numbers of other countries, could hgave been sued for the various time it resorted to it aince 1945 (what is more severely frowned up[on, however, is the forceful annexation of one member state by another as Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990).
Should the U.S. be sued for its alleged breaches, it might lose if it doesn't have a case.
[quote]<strong>Excessive use of imperative? hehe, I thought you were talking about lack of education, as in referring to the actual topic. Seems to me you were insulted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't feel insulted.
[quote]<strong>Nobody ever said it [war] was [illegal]. What was said was that war without valid reason was illegal. The UN charter states quite clear what are valid reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does states the member states whshall refrain from naked agression or otherwise offensive behaviours, but it does not deny them the right to act in an agressive offensive way.
An all out prohibition of aggressive war, would have been expressed explicitly and straightforwardly.
It is not.
[quote]When a treaty sets out to prohibit something, it does it explicitly. The fact is that since 1945, U.N. member states have attacked others for countless times. Often the U.N. would mandate a mediation, or a cease-fire, and in exceptional cases, a punishment of the violent annexation of a member state by another (cf. Iraq 1991), but the U.N. member states have in no way committed to renounce their sovereign right to initiate war.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>The Kuwait invasion by Iraq was illegal. By international law. The responding counter attack was legal. By international law. By signing the UN charter the member states have committed themselves to not wage war without valid reasons. And to respect the sovereignty of the other states, unless they have valid reasons not to. That is the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the case you are referring to, is one of an outright iinvasion and annexation of one mmember state by another.
Had Iraq declared war to Kuwait and bombed it some, U.N. action would've probably been to brokering a cease-fire (possibly to Iraq's benefit) under the Arab League aegis so not to frown the local sensitivness. It's been known to happen before.
However, an invasion and annexation of Kuwait at a time the U.S.S.R. was melting, not to mention the threat to do the same to Saudia; that prompted an unusually severe reaction.
[quote]<strong>I'll provide one of my links again: <a href="http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf"; target="_blank">PDF</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.
Very interesting read [ * ], and it points out that while initiating an act of war for reasons other than self-defence or upholding a U.N. mandate, ?inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?, it is not ?illegal?.
The Charter itself is not a prescriptive binding treaty pertaining to war initiation or its abolishment.
For any specific issue, a speocific convention is supposed to be drafted and ratified.
Take for example, the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade,
and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956:
[quote]The States Parties to the present Convention,
Considering that freedom is the birthright of every human being,
[?]
Article 1.
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926
[?]<hr></blockquote>
Here, the abolition and abandonment of a certain practice is, explicitly, clearly, and straightforwardly expressed (mind you, there are still U.N. member states which keep that particular practice, whether covertly or overtly, and with relative impunity).
I have no knowledge of any such specific binding convention or protocol limiting the right of sovereign states to resort to war, whether in whole or in parts.
[* Interesting read, but at the end of the day, rather academic, since it considers that even the 1981 destruction of the Osirak nuclear facility was a ?violation?. If one had to behave to the satisfaction of the learned Alison MacDonald and Rabinder Singh QC, one would end up dead meat.
It still fails to point to a specific binding abolition of the right of the initation of war, whether in whole or in parts.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>If there were a clause in the US Constitution that stated that New Years Resolutions were the 'supreme law of the land', then I might agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about ?outlawing? the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a ?New Year Resolution? is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.
And given the lack of a specific convention or protocol explicitly abolishing or limiting the right to wage war (see an actual commitment on the abolition of slavery in my above message to New), no country has committed to it, and it is therefore the law of no land
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
If one wants to do right [ * ], such condemnations are an insignificant nuisance.
Being a superpower and all, the U.S. could probably avoid even that nuisance.
[* To do what's right in one's own opinion, regardless of what I deem as ?right?]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
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 (..)
Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?
As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.
On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)
<strong>The U.N. Charter, is even less serious about ?outlawing? the right to wage war (or otherwise limiting the legitimate uses of that right) than a ?New Year Resolution? is about say, stopping to use tobbacco.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTW: I believe the international regualtion of tobacco use doesn't come under the UN charter or the general assembly, but under the WHO. <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr21/en/"; target="_blank">link.</a>
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
- to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
- to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
- to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
- to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
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 (..)
Well, your certainly entitled to your own interpretation of international law. It would be interesting to hear if you have any sources to back up your views. Or is it just your personal opinion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look at declarations replete with generalities as if they were specifically binding commitments, and interperet them as such.
Here's what would be required to serve your view:
Convention on the Abolition of Illegitiamte Warfare
[quote]Considering the right of all human beings to live in peace, safety dignity etc? etc?
Considering that below signed states wish to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered etc? etc?
Article I:
Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of any initation of military operation, use of force, or threat thereof, unless acting upon a due mandate to that effect from the United Nations, and only to the extent that this mandate instructs, or acting on self-defence in a situation recognised as such by the United Nations.
And so on and so forth?<hr></blockquote>
But such a document exists only in my imagination.
And until backed up by such a binding document, specifically and clearly prohibiting the use of force except when and where authorised by the U.N., all the beuatiful prose quoted by you remain in the realm of wishful thinking.
[quote]<strong>As for now, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation. The source material I've read, (to which I've provided a few links), seems to make it quite clear that most countries and experts in the field view it the same way as me and Bunge.
But if you have other documentation, fell free to provide it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That some countries and some experts view it thus hardly means that most do too, or that such view is in any way binding.
The material so diligently provided by you, makes it quite clear that it lacks any actual specifically binding commitment to make war prohibited under international law, whether in whole or in part.
[quote]<strong>On last question, do you consider the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal. By international law? (Or any other law for that matter.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The ?illegal occupation? is one of those myths which no matter how many times refuted keep going among the believers, like ?Mossadegh was democratically elected? or ?The USA propped the Taliban to fight the Soviets?.
When a war occurs, armies remain on the lines held at cease-fire, pending a peace treaty, after when the armies withdraw to the negociated and agreed-upon borders.
In simpler words: the winning guys get to occupy the losing guys till the the peace treaty, when that is signed, occupation ends.
[As happened in the cases of peace treaties between the Allied power and the formerly Axis powers, or between any other formerly warring countries having made peace.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.
You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.
<strong>IG,
You keep creating this straw-man argument. Neither New nor myself has said that the UN outlaws war. Except you keep arguing that it hasn't as if we're saying the UN has outlawed war.
You're pretending that we said the UN outlawed war so you can counter a point that's easily refutable. But neither of us has ever made this point so your counter points are irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm?
[quote]Originally posted by bunge (posted 03-04-2003 03:17 PM, this thread):
<strong>Murder by definition is illegal. Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide.
Which is not the case.
To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.
<strong>The sources New has provided seem pretty convincing to me that UN states have essentially made war illegal unless approved by the UN itself.
To me, it comes down to 1) whether there is any teeth in the law, since it lacks any credible enforcement mechanism, and 2) whether that international law is consistent with the sovereignty of member nations and their laws.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter, in itself, doesn't make war outside of U.N. approval illegal, no more than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in itself, makes slavery or genocide, illegal, under international law.
Specific conventions and treaty, binding to the signatory states, were required for those two practices to be made illegal.
No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.
<strong>
For any kind of war to be declared illegitimate and therefore illegal under international law as per U.N. member states, it has first to be outlawed by an act of international law, such as a binding treaty, convention, resolution, or protocol, by which all U.N. member states would be obligated to abide. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like the U.N. Charter?
<strong>You mean like the U.N. Charter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
See my message above to BRussel.