No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.
The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.
Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.
<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 whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe now that we can penetrate a sovereign state on the grounds of what it may potentially do in the future:
sovereignty is an illusion that holds as long as the UN or someone more powerful says 'whatever you do is fine'
or
it holds if you cannot in the future overstep your borders
the whole notion of a UN places the notion of sovereignty into a trange position of being extremely conditional, expecially now when we get to decide when someone's sovereignty isn't sovereign
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>
Now, there is a section on war crimes, but nowhere would you find there any specific treaty or convention making war itself, a crime.
<strong>I think bunge is saying that the UN charter is such a treaty. Wasn't the whole point of the UN and its charter basically to "outlaw war?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations. It does not outlaw war, nor it is supposed to.
You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.
The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.
Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.
As long as war takes place within a certain circumscribed set of rules then it is nothing but a game to the participants(or 'like a game', for those unwilling to admit its origins in game play)
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game
of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?
<strong>As long as war takes place within a certain circumscribed set of rules then it is nothing but a game to the participants(or 'like a game', for those unwilling to admit its origins in game play)
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game
of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.
In other words, it'd require a global state, so to speak.
Then it'd have ot be able to keep the peace on a global scale, or else it'd have to deal with civil war, or several of them.
[In the event the Terran Regime is able to sustain itself, its Global Legislative Assembly could enact the ?Peace Act? making war illegal. It would be truly the Law of All Land
Then we could start making war with the space aliens, the Peace Act being only applicable on sovereign Terran soil, not on the offworld territories.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[i]The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yes, and it limits the reasons why a country can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?under U.N. mandate, that is.
The U.N. Charter doesn't in any way limit the right of sovereign states to wage war outside such a mandate.
It doesn't make genocide illegal, nor does it specify what is a war crime. that's why we have specific conventions addressing this issue. None of which limits the reasons why a country can go to war.
Cf. This thread, Immanuel Goldstein, posted 9.III.2003 11:36 forum time.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong> 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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?
[quote] 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?. <hr></blockquote>
I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth". In comparison France has only invoked it's right to veto 18 times. And the other veto-wielding powers even less.
I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.
The answer being, in one word: no.]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.
[quote] The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate. <hr></blockquote>
You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.
[quote] To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state. <hr></blockquote>
Hmm... That sounds familiar.
The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.
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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.
[quote]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?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth".</strong><hr></blockquote>
The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.
There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.
[quote]<strong>I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone?
[quote]Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words
The answer being, in one word: no.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what.
[quote]The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I don't think it's the reason why the U.N. was set up; I know that it means well. To promote peace, to avert and prevent war, as I know that the U.N.also provides a mechanism for U.N.-mandated military actions (examples: Korean War, Gulf War).
[quote]To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Hmm... That sounds familiar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, peace hath no price, so, si vis Pacem?
[quote]<strong>The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.
[quote]<strong>The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them), and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.
This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.
[quote]<strong>
There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd call your claim a myth.
[quote]<strong>he Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say anything else?
[quote]<strong>Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone meant that.
[quote]<strong>The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.
Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime. And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:
[quote]4. 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.<hr></blockquote>Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlike for slavery or genocide, U.N. member states haven't committed to a convention specifically abolishing the use of force outside whatever reasons are deemed ?valid?.
[quote]The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them),?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan. Yes, those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn’t recognised (except by the U.K. and Pakistan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?.
[quote]<strong>?and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred.
[quote]<strong>This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It lasted for 35 years and it will last until a peace treaty is signed.
[quote]<strong>despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no time limt set on military occupations, they last until such time the conflict is resolved.
Neither the resolutions 242, 338,478, or any other, nor the Fourth Geneva convention make military occupation illegal.
[quote]There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I'd call your claim a myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking?
[quote]The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did I say anything else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets.
[quote]Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. <hr></blockquote>
Upthread: ?The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe?, etc??.
[quote]The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.
Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam's extensive apparatus does.
And I wasn't saying ?enforcing? I was saying ?preserving? , and that is exactly what Russia, France, Germany and others, are doing.
[quote]<strong>And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the primitive idea of simple majority rule unfettered by checks and balances.
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong> Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:
?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.?
Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm saying that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality or illegality of war, slavery or genocide. It is simply not the purpose of the Charter to address these issues specifically, that's what's the treaties and conventions specifically addressing them were for.
The now illegal practices, such as genocide are dealt with by the said specific treaties and conventions prohibiting and abolishing them. None exists that makes war illegal or limits the sovereign exercise of war to instances where it's ?authorised?.
[quote]<strong>Here's a Google search with hundreds (at least) of links with interpretations consistent with this approach. I'm genuinely interested in other interpretations, if you can link to any..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the U.N. charter will you find it explcilty and specifically addressing the legality or illegality of anything, the least of all war.
Here again are some international treaties and conventions, specifically addressing the legality and illegality of several matters:
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>
Compare two sample texts:
?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.?
(U.N. Charter)
?The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.?
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
I gather you can understand the difference between the two texts, the one declaring and describing purposes and principles, and the one clearly defining something as illegal and punishable; if you can't tell the difference I couldn't do it for you.
There's no ?Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Illegitimate War? or anything of the sort.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
For the last time, we are not discussing the legality or illegality of war itself. Only the regulation of war by international law. And the agreements the member states have committed themselves to. Since nobody in the UN has yet take the initiative to abolish war, you are comparing Apples and Oranges.
So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.
definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>]I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>It lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peacew treaty is signed. </strong><hr></blockquote>
There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.
[quote]<strong>What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.
[quote]<strong>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?
[quote]<strong>Upthread: ?The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe?etc?? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Pfflam was being humorous.
[quote]by me:
<strong>Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So was I.
No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime. Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.
<strong> For the last time, we are not discussing the legality or illegality of war itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There simply isn't such terms as ?illegal war? in international law.
[quote]<strong>Only the regulation of war by international law. And the agreements the member states have committed themselves to. Since nobody in the UN has yet take the initiative to abolish war, you are comparing Apples and Oranges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are war crimes, violations of the rules of war, etc? but there are no illegal wars.
[quote]<strong>So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.
definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Initiating an act of war in violation of signed treaties is a violation of a treaty not an ?illegal war?, for the simple reason that there is no such thing.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?.<hr></blockquote>
Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation.
[quote]?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>(Be'Tselem map of the settlements)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred.
Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty.
[quote]It (the occupation of territories previoulsly occuped by Jordan) lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peace treaty is signed.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's observe its respective records, shall we?
?The occupier? has made peace with Jordan and Egypt, those treaties endure.
Question:
With whom had the Arafat outfit signed peace or any other sort of treaty, and how well did that fare?
Yet, I am not putting all the blame on the Palestinian side, one sidedness not being my thing.
[quote]<strong>The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps I shouoldn't have described in such a slighlty colourful Mediterranean/Levantine style.
I was referring to the UNGA Resolution N°.3379
of November ioth 1975, which ?determined? that Zionism was ?a form of racism?; so as far as the issuing organisation was concerned, it was deemed ?true?, until it was overturned that is.
[quote]<strong>So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes; ore precisely, he was at the head of the brigades of Saudi and other volunteers participating in the Great Afghan Jihad.
[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least two permanent ones: Russia and France, they and Saddam Hussain go back a long way.
[quote]<strong>Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know Jacques Chirac enough to understand his real goals (if we supposed that his goals are differents than his claims), and i am always surprised by people who seems to know the real goal of peoples ; are they telepath ?
For Putine, i have even less personal opinions about him : i would only say that he is better for russia than Eltsine (which is not a great compliment in itself).
This record must be skipping. I thought we covered this. lets call it "illegal use of force" then, or " crime against peace", "breach of of international law" or just "being a world-scale asshole", doesn't really matter. We all know what we are talking about here.
[quote]<strong>Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.
We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.
[quote]<strong>Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas? And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.
[quote]<strong>Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It is very relevant. A country has no right to settle a territory under occupation. oh, I've answered this one already.
[quote]<strong>Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.
Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.
Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-carter.html"; target="_blank">here.</a> He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.
Comments
<strong>
No such official, spcific, and binding commitment exists outlawing (making illegal) the exercise of the sovereign prerogative to wage war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.
The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.
Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.
<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 whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe now that we can penetrate a sovereign state on the grounds of what it may potentially do in the future:
sovereignty is an illusion that holds as long as the UN or someone more powerful says 'whatever you do is fine'
or
it holds if you cannot in the future overstep your borders
the whole notion of a UN places the notion of sovereignty into a trange position of being extremely conditional, expecially now when we get to decide when someone's sovereignty isn't sovereign
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/87.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>
Now, there is a section on war crimes, but nowhere would you find there any specific treaty or convention making war itself, a crime.
[<a href="http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1_txt.htm#q5"; target="_blank">Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words</a>
The answer being, in one word: no.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>I think bunge is saying that the UN charter is such a treaty. Wasn't the whole point of the UN and its charter basically to "outlaw war?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations. It does not outlaw war, nor it is supposed to.
<strong>
You can wage war all you want, but the US has agreed to specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged. These guidelines are now the 'supreme law of the land' ever since we signed the U.N. Charter.
The U.S. Congress still declares war. The U.S. Congress can still declare war. That war by default isn't necessarily illegitimate or illegal.
Under specific conditions it may or may not be legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game
of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?
<strong>As long as war takes place within a certain circumscribed set of rules then it is nothing but a game to the participants(or 'like a game', for those unwilling to admit its origins in game play)
if you could make war itself illegal (ie: against the rules) then we put an end to this game
of course we would need space aliens to enforce such a law . . . that or warfare itself . . . .hhmm a conundrum?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.
In other words, it'd require a global state, so to speak.
Then it'd have ot be able to keep the peace on a global scale, or else it'd have to deal with civil war, or several of them.
[In the event the Terran Regime is able to sustain itself, its Global Legislative Assembly could enact the ?Peace Act? making war illegal. It would be truly the Law of All Land
Then we could start making war with the space aliens, the Peace Act being only applicable on sovereign Terran soil, not on the offworld territories.]
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and it limits the reasons why a country can go to war.
[i]The U.N. Charter is the document describing the puropses and functions of the United Nations Organisations.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yes, and it limits the reasons why a country can go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?under U.N. mandate, that is.
The U.N. Charter doesn't in any way limit the right of sovereign states to wage war outside such a mandate.
It doesn't make genocide illegal, nor does it specify what is a war crime. that's why we have specific conventions addressing this issue. None of which limits the reasons why a country can go to war.
Cf. This thread, Immanuel Goldstein, posted 9.III.2003 11:36 forum time.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong> 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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?
[quote] 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?. <hr></blockquote>
I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth". In comparison France has only invoked it's right to veto 18 times. And the other veto-wielding powers even less.
I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.
[quote]<strong>[<a href="http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1_txt.htm#q5"; target="_blank">Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words</a>
The answer being, in one word: no.]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.
[quote] The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate. <hr></blockquote>
You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.
[quote] To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state. <hr></blockquote>
Hmm... That sounds familiar.
The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.
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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Yet you can point to no sources backing your own interpretation?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.
[quote]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?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I was starting to see were this was going, so I just had to ask. Since the US has used the majority of its 72 vetoes in the Security Council to stop UN actions against this "Myth".</strong><hr></blockquote>
The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.
There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.
[quote]<strong>I don't know much about Mossadegh, and I don't see the relevance. But the US aid to the Mujaheddin is as far as I know a commonly accepted fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone?
[quote]Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN? In the U.N.'s own words
The answer being, in one word: no.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You keep inventing arguments that nobody have made. We all agree on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what.
[quote]The U.N. Charter does not set ?specific guidelines for when and how that war can be waged?, and no other document binding under international set such guidlines.
The U.N. provides mechanisms by which acts of war can be initated by member states under its mandate.
But again, it doesn't deny the sovereign right of a member state to initiate war outside such a mandate.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You sound like you think that the UN was set up to give member states a "mechanism" to initiate "mandated" wars. The idea of the UN was the opposite. The UN was meant to be an instrument of peace, not aggression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I don't think it's the reason why the U.N. was set up; I know that it means well. To promote peace, to avert and prevent war, as I know that the U.N.also provides a mechanism for U.N.-mandated military actions (examples: Korean War, Gulf War).
[quote]To put an send to war would require an entity powerful enough to defeat all opponents and impose itself as the global monopoly on the use of organised violence, the way the armed forces and law enforcements forces work within a sovereign state.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Hmm... That sounds familiar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, peace hath no price, so, si vis Pacem?
[quote]<strong>The whole business of the US using its unique position in the world and on the security councils to pressure the UN into accepting a war is a an insult to the very idea behind the UN.
I think its high time to bring this issue before the general assembly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.
[quote]<strong>The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them), and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.
This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.
[quote]<strong>
There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd call your claim a myth.
[quote]<strong>he Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say anything else?
[quote]<strong>Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. One has to keep track of misconceptions, misperceptions and other myths which keep turning up no matter what. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone meant that.
[quote]<strong>The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.
Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime. And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?
<strong>I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:
[quote]4. 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.<hr></blockquote>Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=war+illegal+united+nations+charter&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"; target="_blank">Here's a Google search</a> with hundreds (at least) of links with interpretations consistent with this approach. I'm genuinely interested in other interpretations, if you can link to any.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But nobody is disputing the legality of war. What we're saying is that the UN member states have committed themselves to abstain from the use of force unless they have valid reasons. These being defined by the UN charter and other commitments, sorting under the supervision of the Security Council and regulated by the International Court of Justice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlike for slavery or genocide, U.N. member states haven't committed to a convention specifically abolishing the use of force outside whatever reasons are deemed ?valid?.
[quote]The occupation of territories conquered in war pending peace treaty is in no way illegal, for there's no specific binding convention or protocol making it illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>International law is quite clear on this. Occupation of hostile territories is legal only in the course of a conflict, for example The Allies in Germany at the end of WWII, as an interim solution. The occupying power must comply with International humanitarian law during this interim period.
Two principles are very clear: Acquisition of occupied territories (or parts of them),?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan. Yes, those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn’t recognised (except by the U.K. and Pakistan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?.
[quote]<strong>?and transfer of civilians of the occupying power to the are in question is prohibited.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred.
[quote]<strong>This complements another explicit principle of international law: the right of peoples to self-determination.
So while the original occupation in itself was not illegal. The fact that it has lasted for 35 years?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It lasted for 35 years and it will last until a peace treaty is signed.
[quote]<strong>despite various UN resolutions (most importantly 242 and 478), and the way it is being enforced including the various annexations makes it illegal.
Directly in conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention and 26 Security Council resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no time limt set on military occupations, they last until such time the conflict is resolved.
Neither the resolutions 242, 338,478, or any other, nor the Fourth Geneva convention make military occupation illegal.
[quote]There's another myth, one of ?Zionism=racism? which was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. until it was later overtuned, after the meltdown of the U.S.S.R.; it was no less of a myth.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I'd call your claim a myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking?
[quote]The Mujahidin were not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s, after the Soviets withdrew (in ?89) from Afghanistan. Not to mention the genral disinvolvement of the U.S. for the place once the Russkis were gone...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did I say anything else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets.
[quote]Up thread, another participant had suggested that the U.N. had somehow made sovereignity ?passé?. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't think anyone meant that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Upthread: ?The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe?, etc??.
[quote]The whole business of other permanent members using their unique positions in the world and on the security councils to pressure the U.N., along with the various Third-World idiocracies using their sheer number, into preserving the Saddam Hussain regime, is somehow less of an insult?
Hardly a novelty. That's the way the U.N. has actually been functioning most of the time; each side using and abusing its particular advantage to further its interest.
So, in case you haven't noticed it before:
?Welcome To Planet Reality??<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Or, from my humble perspective, not functioning at all.
Nobody is enforcing Saddam's regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam's extensive apparatus does.
And I wasn't saying ?enforcing? I was saying ?preserving? , and that is exactly what Russia, France, Germany and others, are doing.
[quote]<strong>And when somebody actually did, the US was a central player, right?
Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the primitive idea of simple majority rule unfettered by checks and balances.
I have showed that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality of war , and I further provided examples of specific treaties making certain things illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong> Immanuel, I don't understand how you get around this, Article 2, paragraph 4, from the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter:
?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.?
Are you saying that's not talking about war? Or are you saying the UN Charter is not a legally binding treaty? It was ratified by the US Senate, just as any other treaty would be, and is therefore US law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm saying that the U.N. Charter does not specifically address the legality or illegality of war, slavery or genocide. It is simply not the purpose of the Charter to address these issues specifically, that's what's the treaties and conventions specifically addressing them were for.
The now illegal practices, such as genocide are dealt with by the said specific treaties and conventions prohibiting and abolishing them. None exists that makes war illegal or limits the sovereign exercise of war to instances where it's ?authorised?.
[quote]<strong>Here's a Google search with hundreds (at least) of links with interpretations consistent with this approach. I'm genuinely interested in other interpretations, if you can link to any..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the U.N. charter will you find it explcilty and specifically addressing the legality or illegality of anything, the least of all war.
Here again are some international treaties and conventions, specifically addressing the legality and illegality of several matters:
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/87.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/88.shtml"; target="_blank">Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/94.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)</a>
<a href="http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/95.shtml"; target="_blank">Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)</a>
Compare two sample texts:
?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.?
(U.N. Charter)
?The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.?
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)
I gather you can understand the difference between the two texts, the one declaring and describing purposes and principles, and the one clearly defining something as illegal and punishable; if you can't tell the difference I couldn't do it for you.
There's no ?Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Illegitimate War? or anything of the sort.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.
definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>]I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://domino.un.org/unispalselect.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/dde590c6ff232007852560df0065fddb!OpenDocument"; target="_blank">Resolution 478</a>
[quote]<strong>?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>It lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peacew treaty is signed. </strong><hr></blockquote>
There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.
[quote]<strong>What claim?
That Jewish aspiration to self-detemination is not racism?
Yea, what were they thinking? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.
[quote]<strong>
Your response suggested you might have confused theTaliban with the Mujahidin, as i specifically mentioned the myth of the support by the U.S. of the Taliban vs. the Soviets. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?
[quote]<strong>Upthread: ?The whole notion of sovereignty seems a bit passe?etc?? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Pfflam was being humorous.
[quote]by me:
<strong>Your idea of nations using "their sheer number" into enforcing things is quite intriguing. I wonder how that idea came about?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So was I.
No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime. Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong> For the last time, we are not discussing the legality or illegality of war itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There simply isn't such terms as ?illegal war? in international law.
[quote]<strong>Only the regulation of war by international law. And the agreements the member states have committed themselves to. Since nobody in the UN has yet take the initiative to abolish war, you are comparing Apples and Oranges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are war crimes, violations of the rules of war, etc? but there are no illegal wars.
[quote]<strong>So: War in itself is not a crime. Not yet anyway. Genocide and Slavery is. However there is (as you said) a Convention on Crimes of War and Crimes against Humanity. This Convention uses the definitions laid down by the Charter of the Millitary Tribunal of Nuremberg. Drafted mainly by the US I believe. And this charter also specifically addresses crimes against peace.
definition: Article 6 a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, (...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Initiating an act of war in violation of signed treaties is a violation of a treaty not an ?illegal war?, for the simple reason that there is no such thing.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I suppose you refer to unilateral annexations of eastern Jerusalem or the Golan, yes those are unrecognised as the annexation of the West bank by Jordan in 1950 wasn't recognised (except by the U.K. and Paksitan), but that's not ?illegal occupation?.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Resolution 478</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/dde590c6ff232007852560df0065fddb!OpenDocument"; target="_blank">UNSC Resolution N°.478</a> of August 20th 1980, which censures the nactment of 'Hoq Yesod Ha-Golan which applies Israeli civil law on the occupied Golan heights.
Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation.
[quote]?Transfer of civilians?? No one has been transferred<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>(Be'Tselem map of the settlements)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred.
Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty.
[quote]It (the occupation of territories previoulsly occuped by Jordan) lasted for 35 years and it will lat until a peace treaty is signed.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>There will never be a peace treaty, because the occupier doesn't want one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's observe its respective records, shall we?
?The occupier? has made peace with Jordan and Egypt, those treaties endure.
Question:
With whom had the Arafat outfit signed peace or any other sort of treaty, and how well did that fare?
Yet, I am not putting all the blame on the Palestinian side, one sidedness not being my thing.
[quote]<strong>The claim that Zionism=racism was accepted as universal truth by the U.N. Utter nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps I shouoldn't have described in such a slighlty colourful Mediterranean/Levantine style.
I was referring to the UNGA Resolution N°.3379
of November ioth 1975, which ?determined? that Zionism was ?a form of racism?; so as far as the issuing organisation was concerned, it was deemed ?true?, until it was overturned that is.
[quote]<strong>So by posting the correct name of who the US supported against Soviet I seemed confused? You do agree that OBL was part of the Mujaheddin?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes; ore precisely, he was at the head of the brigades of Saudi and other volunteers participating in the Great Afghan Jihad.
[quote]<strong>No Security Council power is trying to "preserve" Saddams regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least two permanent ones: Russia and France, they and Saddam Hussain go back a long way.
[quote]<strong>Stability and the integrity of the UN, yes. Maybe even Peace. But Saddam, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know Jacques Chirac enough to understand his real goals (if we supposed that his goals are differents than his claims), and i am always surprised by people who seems to know the real goal of peoples ; are they telepath ?
For Putine, i have even less personal opinions about him : i would only say that he is better for russia than Eltsine (which is not a great compliment in itself).
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Therefore, according to international law, the Golan is still considered as a territory under military occupation by Israel (as it was since 1967), and it doesn't recognise the unilateral annexation. Yet the occupation itself is not in contravention to international law, only the annexation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So what, it still a breach of international law. Since parts of the occupation (like the annexation) is illegal. So calling the occupation "illegal" is a fair statement, even when the act of occupying in itself is not illegal as such.
We are not discussing wording here, but principles of international law. And you fail to address the real issues.
[quote]<strong>Transfer of civilians is a forceful removal of civilians from one place to another. A civilian moving from say, Haifa, to Efrat is not being transferred. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you saying palestinians have not been forcefully removed from these areas? And moving a person to an occupied territory is a transfer. Even if its voluntarily.
[quote]<strong>Then again, the settlement activity, particularly when enacted as a government policy, certainly presents numerous problems in the eyes of international law, but that is irrelevent to the question of the legality or illegality of military occupation of territories captured in war, pending peace treaty. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It is very relevant. A country has no right to settle a territory under occupation. oh, I've answered this one already.
[quote]<strong>Amazing how can anyone suspect such characters as Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin of such lofty goals as ?stability? and ?integrity?.
Next thing, one of them would be shooting Liberty Valance and, out of modesty, let the other guy have the glory for it, for posterity. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't consider "stability" and "integrity" a lofty goal. I think France and Russia are just trying to "stay in power" so to speak. I have no high thoughts for these governments.
Germany, on the other hand, I think is genuinely interested in peace. That's a "lofty" and valiant goal.
Jimmy Carter wrote a very good article in the New York Times this Sunday. I don't know why its not on the net yet, but at least you can read about it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-carter.html"; target="_blank">here.</a> He says the war is unjust and "almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.'' Strong words from a usually mild man.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>