I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.
I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Talk about missing the point.
Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?
<strong>I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter </strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.
[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?red?, ?off-white?, and ?aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A. <hr></blockquote>
My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.
Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim". Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.
[quote]On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first. <hr></blockquote>
But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.
[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.<hr></blockquote>
And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?
[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education. <hr></blockquote>
hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)
[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things. <hr></blockquote>
Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. I get it now.
It's a knee-jerk thing on my account. Sorry.
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.
[quote]Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Nicaragua Vs. the US
Or is its authority just undermined?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The International Court of Justice is used to settle disputes, in which one member state can sue another for breach of international commitments, like treaties or charters, to which it had committed with its signature.
Your link does not show that any state is bound by treaties it did not sign. The ICJ itself is not a legislature, and neither is the U.N.
[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?Red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?Red?, ?Off-white?, and ?Aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those three treaties could be related, by they aren't necessarily so, as not all treaties are built on all others or even related to all others.
[quote]<strong>Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim".</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is precisely what I've been saying, A is bound by the ?Red? treaty, so ,it can be p[rosecuted if in breach of ?Red? but not of ?Off-white?.
[quote]<strong>Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.
As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Milo?ević had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.
[quote]On the contrary, they [Nürnberg Trials] were very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In such matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century.
[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?</strong><hr></blockquote>
While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.
[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.
[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I did post some links to such experts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links.
Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.
[quote]<strong>It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not. </strong><hr></blockquote>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.
[quote]<strong>Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.
[quote]<strong>As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Milo?evi? had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.</strong><hr></blockquote> Actually, european states, the US and the UN paved way for milosevic's actions. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand. Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.
[quote]<strong>Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century. </strong><hr></blockquote>Nuremberg is far more important to modern international law than old piracy laws. But in principle we are in agreement on this. International law isn't a new invention.
[quote]<strong>While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter. I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.
[quote]<strong>Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.</strong><hr></blockquote>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.
[quote]<strong>I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?
[quote]<strong>Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.
<strong>But it does explicitly state that the international treaties we sign are the 'supreme law of the land' which, in my book, is pretty important.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if it conflicts with a Constitutionally appointed power of government the Constitutional is supreme. Read Article VI (the one you're referring to) in full.
No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.
No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't take away a Constitutionally appointed power. The UN doesn't step in and declare war for us. THAT would be ursurping Constitutionally appointed power.
Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A sovereign country fulfilling its international obligations is no surrender of its sovereignity, unless the treaty is specificially about surrender of sovereignity, which the U.N. Charter is not.
[quote]It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nations have the prerogative to come to a conclusion opposed by other countries, they even have the prerogative to wage war to other countries.
It seems to me you keep imagining that relations between sovereign states are regulated in the same manner that relations between individuals are regulated within a state.
[quote]Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the court at Nürnberg didn't legislate. The Axis powers having surrendered without condition, they were at the mercy of the victors who by reight of victory had dispensed justice as they saw it.
A few years later, were drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a new Geneva Covention (which prohibits genocide), to which scores of countries have signed, making it international law for the singnatory countries.
[quote]<strong>Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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..
[quote]While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps not to you, my remaining alive is still of some importance to me.
[quote]<strong>I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends of what education and values did they receive, and of how their society look upon excessive deviations from said rules and regulations. The cases kniwn to me are mostly ones of restraint.
Of course, it is easier to have little or no blemish when one is lucky enough not to be involved in a conflict and actually face such dilemma.
[quote]<strong>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: ?do this and that!?) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you.
[quote]<strong>Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a thread as long as this one it is hardly reasonable to expect that all read each and every post.
[quote]Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So I gather they tend to agree with me on the issue of ?who's a combatant?.
It seems to me you fail to discern cetain nuances:
There is a debate going on whether current binding U.N. resolutions on Iraq are enough of a mandate for a military attack; and many experts are certainly of the opinion it is not enough of a mandate. And the U.S. could hardly claim a U.N. resolution to justify its attack without such a mandate.
However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.
But it can make some catchy tunes.
Any country is entitled to wage war to Iraq; however, in order to assume the mantle of a U.N. mandate for such an attack it must first fulfill the criteria required by such a mandate.
[דיר באלאק חבל על הזמן]
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.
When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're ignoring my posts.
The UN Charter doesn't circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers. When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.
<strong> When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realize bunge. I understand that. But that has nothing to do with when we decide on war. Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.
After rereading the last page of this thread, i came to the conclusion that the definition of a combattant is not easy to get.
A combattant is not only a people who use a weapon during a fight. A burglar who use his weapon against police should not be called combattant, it's simply a criminal.
Combattant refer to combat and not only to a fight. It's very hard to give a definition nowdays. The geneva convention speak of combattants, but a this time, things where simplier, mostly soldiers or milice. Terrorism was only embryonic.
Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and OUR congress limited future congresses by enacting the 'supreme law of the land' to limit when and why we can go to war as stated in the UN Charter.
That's the US Congress, not the UN Charter that's responsible. The US Congress does have the ability to pass laws that put limits on future congresses.
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...</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote] Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: ?do this and that!?) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you. <hr></blockquote>
If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.
I think your overdoing it a bit. And going on about it like you've now done, makes my comment even more valid.
I would now, pretty please, suggest that you try to get over it. (mark lack of use of imperative, however tempting.)
[quote] However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.<hr></blockquote>
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.
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.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
And regarding non-member states, which you seem to think aren't affected by the charter:
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
From Chapter VII, regarding the right to use force:
Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40:
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 46:
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
And finally concerning the right to self-defence:
Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN charter.
Comments
<strong>No one has restricted you from saying your peace. Mutually, people are free to call you a broken record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have I asked people not to? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.
I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Talk about missing the point.
Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?
<strong>I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter </strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.
[quote]Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html"; target="_blank">Nicaragua Vs. the US</a>
Or is its authority just undermined?
[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?red?, ?off-white?, and ?aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A. <hr></blockquote>
My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.
Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim". Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.
[quote]On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first. <hr></blockquote>
But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.
[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.<hr></blockquote>
And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?
[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education. <hr></blockquote>
hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)
[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things. <hr></blockquote>
I did post some links to such experts.
<strong>
Talk about missing the point.
Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. I get it now.
It's a knee-jerk thing on my account. Sorry.
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
<strong>
Thanks. I get it now.
It's a knee-jerk thing on my account. Sorry.
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
First step to recovery?
<strong>
I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Hassan
<strong>Go give it a read.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?It? meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.
[quote]Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Nicaragua Vs. the US
Or is its authority just undermined?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The International Court of Justice is used to settle disputes, in which one member state can sue another for breach of international commitments, like treaties or charters, to which it had committed with its signature.
Your link does not show that any state is bound by treaties it did not sign. The ICJ itself is not a legislature, and neither is the U.N.
[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?Red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?Red?, ?Off-white?, and ?Aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those three treaties could be related, by they aren't necessarily so, as not all treaties are built on all others or even related to all others.
[quote]<strong>Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim".</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is precisely what I've been saying, A is bound by the ?Red? treaty, so ,it can be p[rosecuted if in breach of ?Red? but not of ?Off-white?.
[quote]<strong>Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.
As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Milo?ević had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.
[quote]On the contrary, they [Nürnberg Trials] were very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In such matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century.
[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?</strong><hr></blockquote>
While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.
[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.
[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I did post some links to such experts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links.
Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
?It? meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.
[quote]<strong>It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not. </strong><hr></blockquote>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.
[quote]<strong>Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.
[quote]<strong>As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Milo?evi? had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.</strong><hr></blockquote> Actually, european states, the US and the UN paved way for milosevic's actions. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand. Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.
[quote]<strong>Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century. </strong><hr></blockquote>Nuremberg is far more important to modern international law than old piracy laws. But in principle we are in agreement on this. International law isn't a new invention.
[quote]<strong>While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter. I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.
[quote]<strong>Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.</strong><hr></blockquote>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.
[quote]<strong>I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?
[quote]<strong>Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
?It? meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it does explicitly state that the international treaties we sign are the 'supreme law of the land' which, in my book, is pretty important.
<strong>But it does explicitly state that the international treaties we sign are the 'supreme law of the land' which, in my book, is pretty important.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if it conflicts with a Constitutionally appointed power of government the Constitutional is supreme. Read Article VI (the one you're referring to) in full.
No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.
<strong>
No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't take away a Constitutionally appointed power. The UN doesn't step in and declare war for us. THAT would be ursurping Constitutionally appointed power.
Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.
Your argument is weak.
?It? meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A sovereign country fulfilling its international obligations is no surrender of its sovereignity, unless the treaty is specificially about surrender of sovereignity, which the U.N. Charter is not.
[quote]It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nations have the prerogative to come to a conclusion opposed by other countries, they even have the prerogative to wage war to other countries.
It seems to me you keep imagining that relations between sovereign states are regulated in the same manner that relations between individuals are regulated within a state.
[quote]Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the court at Nürnberg didn't legislate. The Axis powers having surrendered without condition, they were at the mercy of the victors who by reight of victory had dispensed justice as they saw it.
A few years later, were drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a new Geneva Covention (which prohibits genocide), to which scores of countries have signed, making it international law for the singnatory countries.
[quote]<strong>Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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..
[quote]While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps not to you, my remaining alive is still of some importance to me.
[quote]<strong>I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends of what education and values did they receive, and of how their society look upon excessive deviations from said rules and regulations. The cases kniwn to me are mostly ones of restraint.
Of course, it is easier to have little or no blemish when one is lucky enough not to be involved in a conflict and actually face such dilemma.
[quote]<strong>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: ?do this and that!?) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you.
[quote]<strong>Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a thread as long as this one it is hardly reasonable to expect that all read each and every post.
[quote]Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So I gather they tend to agree with me on the issue of ?who's a combatant?.
It seems to me you fail to discern cetain nuances:
There is a debate going on whether current binding U.N. resolutions on Iraq are enough of a mandate for a military attack; and many experts are certainly of the opinion it is not enough of a mandate. And the U.S. could hardly claim a U.N. resolution to justify its attack without such a mandate.
However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.
But it can make some catchy tunes.
Any country is entitled to wage war to Iraq; however, in order to assume the mantle of a U.N. mandate for such an attack it must first fulfill the criteria required by such a mandate.
[דיר באלאק חבל על הזמן]
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.
<strong>
When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're ignoring my posts.
The UN Charter doesn't circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers. When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.
I'm sorry.
<strong>
[דיר באלאק חבל על הזמן]
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
hehe.
Tell me about it.
<strong> When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realize bunge. I understand that. But that has nothing to do with when we decide on war. Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.
A combattant is not only a people who use a weapon during a fight. A burglar who use his weapon against police should not be called combattant, it's simply a criminal.
Combattant refer to combat and not only to a fight. It's very hard to give a definition nowdays. The geneva convention speak of combattants, but a this time, things where simplier, mostly soldiers or milice. Terrorism was only embryonic.
<strong>
Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and OUR congress limited future congresses by enacting the 'supreme law of the land' to limit when and why we can go to war as stated in the UN Charter.
That's the US Congress, not the UN Charter that's responsible. The US Congress does have the ability to pass laws that put limits on future congresses.
<strong>
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...</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
[quote] Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: ?do this and that!?) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you. <hr></blockquote>
If your still referring to my "get down on earth" comment.
I think your overdoing it a bit. And going on about it like you've now done, makes my comment even more valid.
I would now, pretty please, suggest that you try to get over it. (mark lack of use of imperative, however tempting.)
[quote] However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as ?illegal war?.<hr></blockquote>
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.
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.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
And regarding non-member states, which you seem to think aren't affected by the charter:
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
From Chapter VII, regarding the right to use force:
Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40:
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 46:
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
And finally concerning the right to self-defence:
Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Hardly just a catchy tune. So as you see, without the proper mandate, an attack would be a breach of the UN charter.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>