What do you think? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Is the "COALITION" a United Nations force?
Yes 2 6.90%
No 27 93.10%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2003, 04:51 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:48 PM
Nowhere to hide behind the letter of the law
March 19 2003

The legal basis for military action against Saddam Hussein is weak, write Devika Hovell and George Williams.


John Howard has committed Australian troops to a war in Iraq on the basis that this can be justified under international law. However, the legal case for unilateral pre-emptive action against Iraq is weak. The failure, despite several attempts, to gain a further Security Council resolution authorising the use of force means that an attack will breach international law.

According to its charter, the United Nations was formed to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and its overriding aim is to ensure that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. International law prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against another. This is subject to two exceptions.

First, force can be used with the authorisation of the Security Council, which is charged with determining what action should be taken in response to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Second, a state can use force in self-defence.

The lack of evidence of an imminent attack by Iraq explains why Howard has chosen to rely on the first of these exceptions. The argument is that Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, dating from the Gulf War, provide a basis for the use of force in Iraq today. They suggest that since the early 1990s the United States and other countries have been in possession of a blank cheque enabling them to use force in Iraq whenever they believe that Iraq has failed to comply with the directions of the Security Council.

A reading of the resolutions shows that this argument is untenable. Resolution 678 was made after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It authorised member states, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait (an important limitation), to use force against Iraq. Resolution 687 transformed the cessation of hostilities into a permanent ceasefire. Of all the provisions in that ceasefire resolution, only one paragraph authorises the ongoing use of force. It does so only in the context of guaranteeing the Kuwait border, and then only by the Security Council and not by individual states.


The key to the Government's legal view is that Iraq's actions have somehow negated the basis of the 1991 ceasefire as expressed in Resolution 687. It has been argued the ceasefire declared by Resolution 687 was conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However, the resolution makes clear the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution.

The resolution states that it is then up to the Security Council to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution. No state or coalition of states acting outside the authorisation of the council retains the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance.

Hence, a further resolution of the Security Council is required. The closest we have come to this is resolution 1441 of November last year. It speaks in strong language of Iraq's obligations to disarm and to co-operate fully in this process. It also states that this is the final opportunity for Iraq to comply. However, in the event of non-compliance by Iraq, the resolution does not authorise the use of force. Instead, in the event of a material breach by Iraq, the Security Council should convene immediately to consider the situation. It also reminds Iraq that serious consequences will follow. Such consequences cannot be visited upon Iraq by the United States or any other country in the absence of the Security Council stating what those consequences shall be and who can enforce them.

Australia will breach international law if we engage in military action in Iraq as part of a US-led coalition. The use of force has not been authorised by the Security Council. It may be that international law will adapt after the event to provide a retrospective justification for war. This may occur if our actions are seen in hindsight to have been in the common interest of the international community.

However, to enter a war based on this expectation sees us revert to the "just war" theory. In doing so, we fall into precisely the trap the United Nations was established to avoid.

The decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious. Australia will be better served by adherence to the international rule of law.

Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, and Professor George Williams are based at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 05:00 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:48 PM
The National Lawyers Guild based in New York issued this document on Iraq and International Law.

In their opinion 1441 does not authorize force.


http://www.nlg.org/programs/mideast/iraq_fact_sheet.pdf
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 05:01 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Dreadsox,

"I eagerly await being warned or banned then if my comments were personal or if I was harshly attacking you. You were very flippant with the opinions I linked to and your comments about the ASIL meeting in France were uncalled for."

Did you direct your thoughts towards me or towards the topics and organizations being discussed?

I said I thought the ASIL was wrong on 678 and was not surprised that they would have an opinion that I felt was wrong on 1483! That is an honest opinion! The ASIL has a lot in common with the French Governments legal point of view on the whole aspect as well I'm sure with many in the French Law community and most people in France. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. People who think alike tend to enjoy each others company. I do not think its flippant or uncalled for to say that the ASIL will be warmly recieved at their next conference in Paris more so than others with the opposite opinion. Thats honestly what I think and I can't understand how you could say that is uncalled for or flippant. I don't think there is anything wrong with that fact though and hope they have a good time. Paris is a cool city.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 05:31 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Dreadsox,

From George Williams article:

"A reading of the resolutions shows that this argument is untenable. Resolution 678 was made after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It authorised member states, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait (an important limitation), to use force against Iraq. Resolution 687 transformed the cessation of hostilities into a permanent ceasefire. Of all the provisions in that ceasefire resolution, only one paragraph authorises the ongoing use of force. It does so only in the context of guaranteeing the Kuwait border, and then only by the Security Council and not by individual states."

The line that mentions cooperation with Kuwait is not a limiting factor at all in this context. Resolution 687 NEVER transformed or rescended resolution 678 which continues to be sited in UN resolutions in 2002. Resolution 678 authorized the use of all means necessary to bring about Iraqi compliance with the stated UN resolutions at the time and "ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS". Nothing in 687 specifically rescends or transforms that factor. Thus, if and when Iraq is found to be in material breech of its obligations, the member states are authorized to use all means necessary to reverse that condition.


"The resolution states that it is then up to the Security Council to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution. No state or coalition of states acting outside the authorisation of the council retains the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance."

Thats false because the Security Council give member states the authorization to use all means necessary to bring about compliance with all subsequent resolutions as stated in resolution 678 which, contrary to this Lawyers opinion, has never been rescended or transformed in any way.

"However, in the event of non-compliance by Iraq, the resolution does not authorise the use of force. Instead, in the event of a material breach by Iraq, the Security Council should convene immediately to consider the situation. It also reminds Iraq that serious consequences will follow. Such consequences cannot be visited upon Iraq by the United States or any other country in the absence of the Security Council stating what those consequences shall be and who can enforce them."

This opinion in regards to 1441 I feel is wrong as well. In light of the fact that the only consequence that Iraq was not facing at the time was the use of large scale military force, the term "Serious Consequences" is already defined because it can only mean one thing in light of the context. Perhaps this lawyer needs to be reminded that the term "military force" was not used in the resolutions that authorized the removal of the Iraqi military from Kuwait. Using his logic, I guess we could argue that action was a violation of international law as well because it did not specifically define or use the term "military force"!


"The decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious. Australia will be better served by adherence to the international rule of law."

Or we should say, his interpretation of the international rule of law. I wonder what George had to say about the war in Kosovo?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 06:38 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:48 PM
Is the War on Iraq Lawful?
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Mar. 19, 2003

As of this writing, American and British forces are poised to attack Iraq. Questions of military strategy, geopolitics and morality loom large, but so do questions of law.

Is the war to disarm and dislodge Saddam Hussein justified under international law? Has it been adequately authorized under U.S. law, with proper Congressional approval?

It is doubtful that any court will ever address either question, but that may provide all the more reason to consider these issues in the court of public opinion.

The International Law Issue: Three Possible Grounds for War

Under international law, force is authorized in essentially two or, at most, three circumstances.

First, Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter permit the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to authorize the use of force "to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Second, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" against "an armed attack."

Third, an international norm may be emerging that would permit nations to use military force to prevent genocide or other humanitarian catastrophes. However, while Saddam Hussein has, in the past, committed horrific acts against his own people, the U.S. has not argued that intervention is necessary to address ongoing crimes against humanity.

Do either of the first two grounds - based on U.N. Charter provisions - justify war?

U.N. Security Council Authorization: The First Possible Ground For War

In his March 17 speech, President Bush claimed that prior U.N. resolutions have already provided the necessary legal authority for attacking Iraq. Speaking for the Blair Administration, British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith made the same point. Are they correct? The answer is no.

In November 1990, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 678, authorizing nations "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait . . . to use all necessary means" of dislodging Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait.

This resolution authorized force only for the purpose of driving the Iraqi military out of Kuwait, an objective which was fully accomplished by 1991. It would be arguably relevant now only if Saddam reinvaded Kuwait.

Then, at the conclusion of the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted Resolution 687. It called for, among other things, Iraq's destruction and renunciation of various weapons, including biological, chemical and nuclear arms. And it stated the Security Council's intention "to take as appropriate all necessary measures" to guarantee the inviolability of the Iraq-Kuwait border. Although that language is broad, it does not refer to the disarmament provisions. Resolution 687 makes clear that its disarmament provisions are governed by the Security Council's resolve "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

That last statement hardly reads as a blank check to any Security Council member or other state to act on its own to require Iraq's disarmament. Instead, it suggests, quite to the contrary, that the Security Council itself, acting via additional resolutions, could take "further steps."

Last November, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441. It warned that Iraq would "face serious consequences" if it were to remain in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations. Employing the Resolution's language, the Bush Administration has argued that Iraq is in "material breach" and that war is thus justified.

However, as I explained in an earlier column, Resolution 1441 implies that the Security Council itself will decide if a material breach has occurred, and expressly states that the Security Council itself, in the event of such a breach, will "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

We know that the Security Council does not think that a serious breach warranting all-out war has occurred. Perhaps the Security Council, under veto threat from France (and possibly Russia as well), has behaved unreasonably and irresponsibly in this respect, as suggested by American and British diplomats. But if so, that still does not alter the fact that the Security Council did not authorize war. At most, it bolsters the moral case for war, not the legal case.

Self-Defense: The Second Possible Ground for War

The boldest argument for war is that the United States and other countries face the prospect of an "armed attack" by Iraq, thus justifying the sovereign right to use force in self-defense. But certainly Iraq was not about to invade the United States or even Kuwait, where thousands of American and British troops have patrolled the border since the Gulf War. Nor have Bush and Blair pointed to any information indicating an imminent threat; instead, they have rested their arguments primarily on the fear of Saddam's future direct or indirect use of weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, the argument for self-defense must be based on an expansion of that concept - from self-defense as repelling an ongoing or imminent attack, to self-defense as pre-emption of a feared future attack.

Under the pre-emption doctrine, touted by the Bush Administration, an enemy that is in the process of acquiring weapons of mass destruction can be attacked before using those weapons. The underlying concern is no doubt a serious one. The doctrine, however, remains outside of international law and could potentially prove quite dangerous.

Self-defense, as it traditionally has been understood under international law, is very much like self-defense in the law governing individuals. If an aggressor is in the midst of, or just about to, attack, one need not absorb the first blow before fighting back. The attack, however, must be imminent, if not already underway.

The imminence requirement is extremely important in international affairs. If the U.S. can take non-Security-Council authorized pre-emptive or preventive military action, then other countries can as well. Thus, regional powers fearing the rise of neighboring rivals could decide that it is better to act against their future enemies before the threat fully materializes.

Not every invocation of the doctrine of pre-emption will be justified. Some will be based on misjudgments, and others will simply be pretextual - justifying aggression under the guise of pre-emption. Ultimately, the doctrine allowing pre-emption of long-term threats has the potential to be enormously destabilizing.

Was War Constitutionally Authorized by Congress?

The international law arguments in favor of the war's legality, then, are weak at best. What about the war's legality as a matter of U.S. law? There, the question is closer.

The U.S. Constitution sets no limits on the reasons for which the United States may go to war. Its primary limit is procedural. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone has the power to declare war.

Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. As I explained in an earlier column, the failure to issue formal declarations of war partly reflects the fact that such declarations are antiquated. But Congressional equivocation also reflects Congressional ambivalence. Members of Congress do not want to have to take the heat for a war that goes badly, but they also want to appear supportive of our troops. Thus, they have a built-in incentive to sit on the fence.

Judged by the standards of recent American military actions, Congress provided President Bush with crystal clear authority to make war on Iraq. In October 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The constitutional problem with the Congressional authorization, if there is one, is not lack of clarity; it's that Congress passed the buck. A number of commentators and even some individual members of Congress have argued that Congress may not delegate to the President the power to declare war. The Constitution, on this view, puts the power to declare war in the hands of Congress so that members of Congress--who must stand for frequent re-election--will make the hard decisions themselves.

This objection would be a good one if Congress had delegated something approximating its entire warmaking power to the President. But under the circumstances, the delegation appears reasonable. If one believed that Saddam would only disarm under military pressure, then to make the threat of war credible, Congress had to delegate power to the President. It would have been premature for Congress actually to declare war back in October, before further planned diplomatic efforts were undertaken. The Constitution is best interpreted to permit Congress to use this type of carrot-and-stick tactic.

There is one further wrinkle under U.S. law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered "the supreme Law of the Land." The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and as discussed above, under the Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq. Accordingly, if the war violates international law - as I have suggested it does - then it also thereby violates U.S. law.

That is not to say that any court will entertain a challenge to military action. U.S. courts have long treated such questions as committed to the political branches. And it is clear that Congress and the President have made their decision.

Does the Lawfulness of War Matter?

In the end, the question of whether war on Iraq is legally justified is less important than whether it is morally and practically justified. If the U.S. and its allies prevail in a relatively quick war with minimal loss of life, if further evidence of Saddam's malevolent intent surfaces, and if the Iraqi people welcome allied forces as liberators rather than conquerors, then quibbles about legality may be overlooked.

Nonetheless, one impact of a war of dubious lawfulness may be the continued erosion of respect for the United States as a nation committed to principles of justice under law. President Bush says that he is justified in using military might because his cause is just. To much of the rest of the world, however, it looks the other way around: that the U.S. and its allies act as they wish because, in the American view, might makes right.

In that respect, a bit of ancient history may be relevant. In Chapter Seventeen of his History of the Peloponnesian War (between Athens and Sparta in the Fifth Century B.C.), Thucydides recounted the reaction of the people of the small neutral island state of Melos to the invading Athenian navy. Before attacking Melos, the Athenians gave the Melians an opportunity to surrender. The Melians attempted to persuade the Athenians to leave them alone. According to Thucydides, the Athenians would have none of it. Questions of justice arise only among equals, the Athenians said, while the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

The Melians refused to surrender; the Athenians prevailed militarily; they killed the adult Melian males; and they sold the women and children into slavery. But ultimately with aid from Persia (modern-day Iran), Sparta defeated and conquered Athens, which never regained its glory.

Even as we hope that President Bush can bring the spirit of Athenian democracy to the cradle of civilization, we may fear that he has forged a different, and darker, connection to ancient Athens.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com