War without UN approval - how legal is it? Plus US has an interesting opinion

[U2girl]

Does anyone have any info on that? What does the international law say? (and please, not again with the "we don't need permission to protect our people" thing again)

As for "UN failing to enforce the resolutions" and the incoming war being "UN failure" I don't think so. IMO this happened because US/Britain could not get 9 pro votes in Security Council, and not because of a potential Russian veto. UN was fine from the start, but as soon as its majority refused to get the additional resolution it gets the blame. Everyone agreed this matter should be settled with UN but all of a sudden, when UN decisions didn't suit certain states they went in and acted alone.

 

[Klaus]

U2girl:

Read the UN Charta and make up your own mind:

www.un.org

to make it short:
1) all wars are illegal
2) exceptions:
a) the UN Security council says it's ok (because you can't forsee every possibility and they thought in a democratic way when they founded the UN, the mayority of nations will know what's right and what's wrong the Veto was invented to make sure the "big players" don't force the small ones to agree)

b) There is a imminent threat to your country and you have to self defend.

Kofi anan pointed out a few days ago that it would be illegal if the US and GB start war without approval of the UN.

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

p.s. Russia delayed the ratification of a dissarment contract with the US today to show their dissagreement with the US position

Not only the catholics should read the statement of the Vatican to the Bush speech.

 

[DrTeeth]

The Bush administration believes 'serious consequences' is an anagram for 'military force'. The rest of the UN and the security council, apart from a few rogue nations, disagree. Military action would have been voted out or veto'd (sp?).

I'm going to send some more pretzels to the white house.

 

[hiphop]

International law clearly says this upcoming war is illegal in terms of international right. Article 7 is the most important one in that respect.

I haven?t seen any attack from Iraq on the U.S. which could justify Article 51. 9/11 was an attack by terrorists, and who probably supports who over which sources is irrelevant in terms of Article 51. It is very clear the nation of Iraq can?t be held responsible for 9/11.

Furthermore, Article 7 doesn?t state that a war is justified when resolutions, like 1441 or whatever, are not fulfilled (we can discuss for ages if they were fulfilled or not, but take into account that the inspectors according to their own words had access and missiles were destroyed). A resolution is not as "definitive" as Article 7.

In legal terms, it is totally clear that this war is against international law. The U.S. administration knows that and shows all the world it doesn?t give a damn about international law.

But considering that the U.S. is the only superpower, I doubt it will be held responsible for this illegal violation of law.

 

[V Nura]

U2girl:

Read the UN Charta and make up your own mind:

www.un.org

to make it short:
1) all wars are illegal
2) exceptions:
a) the UN Security council says it's ok (because you can't forsee every possibility and they thought in a democratic way when they founded the UN, the mayority of nations will know what's right and what's wrong the Veto was invented to make sure the "big players" don't force the small ones to agree)

b) There is a imminent threat to your country and you have to self defend.

Kofi anan pointed out a few days ago that it would be illegal if the US and GB start war without approval of the UN.

Klaus

Klaus,

my udnerstanding is that because there is only a cease fire agreement with iraq on teh books that all they have to do is prove violation of that in order to go to war.



my understanding is...that the guf war never technically ended...there was jsut a ceasre fire agreement by which iraq was given certain conditions and breach of any of them (including firing on planes) could lead to re-starting a war again

 

[ALEXRUS]

In legal terms, it is totally clear that this war is against international law. The U.S. administration knows that and shows all the world it doesn?t give a damn about international law.

Absolutely. That was also the case of Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. According to international law (i.e UN Charter) NATO bombardments led by US were illegal agression against a sovereign country.
Time will come when the guilty will be held responsible. I don't think the US will be dominating this world endlessly. "Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall". History will be the ultimate judge.

 

[Dreadsox]

The biggest mistake made by the President was going back to the UN after 1441 passed. It gives legitimacy to the argument that we are acting without approval of the council.

I am not going to debate this again. I support the President's decision.

As to the debate on this issue here are the best written opinions that I could find when I was researching my debates with Sting. I learned quite a bit on the topic from debating him.

1441 Legal Opinion http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm

How to bypass the security council
http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm

Letter to President Bush from NY BAR
http://www.abcny.org/currentarticle/abcny_ Urges_No_US_Military.html


These two were probably the best written articles. They provide both sides of the arguments and are written by lawyers.

Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

Good thread started by hip hop related to this topic:

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72549

 

[U2girl]

From teletext on Croatian TV: ICJ (International court), made of renowned lawyers from around the world said this action is not legal. They said a country can go to war if a) Security council authorizes it or b) in case of attack, when it would have to defend itself.

One of the members of ICJ said the a) option was installed in 1946 exactly for preventing any country to act on its own.

 

[Dreadsox]

U2 Girl

Yep, and in 1946 the risk of an attack along the lines of 9-11 was not too great was it? The risk of terrorists getting ahold of a WMD was what then? The world has changed since then and we have the right to defend ourselves.


In response to what Arun said.....

Cease-Fire agreed too by the Security Council can only be determined in material breach by the Security Council. The Security Council declared Iraq in breach in Resolution 1441, which technically ended the cease-fire.

Here is the British Position on this:

All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

The authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.

Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

 

[U2girl]

True, in 1946 the world couldn't have known about the threats of modern times.

But still, the idea that UN (Security Council) is the internationally acknowledged body to settle issues should apply, or the idea that UN (SC) should decide when it is time to go to war. It is a dangerous precedent if anyone acts unilaterally, and in this age of horrendous weapons, I fear this may cost the world dearly.

 

[nbcrusader]

It is a dangerous precedent if anyone acts unilaterally, and in this age of horrendous weapons, I fear this may cost the world dearly.

Precedent? Countries have been acting unilaterally for decades. Also, I do not believe it was the intention of the UN that individual nations abdicate their sovereignty.

 

[hiphop]

Precedent? Countries have been acting unilaterally for decades. Also, I do not believe it was the intention of the UN that individual nations abdicate their sovereignty.

We are not talking about intentions here.

You know that it is illegal in terms of international law.

Anyway, sure enough, you have the right to support the upcoming war for certain reasons and opinions, and I know that its not totally out of nothing.

But it is illegal.

 

[follower]

But still, the idea that UN (Security Council) is the internationally acknowledged body to settle issues should apply, or the idea that UN (SC) should decide when it is time to go to war. It is a dangerous precedent if anyone acts unilaterally, and in this age of horrendous weapons, I fear this may cost the world dearly.

I couldn?t agree more with you U2girl and so does my president Lula. This is what he stated today, in a rough translation:

"In my opinion president Bush?s speech disrespects UN and disregard the Security Council and what the rest of the world thinks. I think that this is serious, it?s seriously bad for the UN future, because UN is the world?s reference on how countries should behave. I think that his pronouncement was very tough. The US government is turning the war on a solely american problem. We all want that Iraq doesn?t possess weapons, weapons of mass destruction, so that the world can live in peace, but that doesn?t give the right to US alone to decide what is good or bad for the world."

Lula and Mr. Kofi Annan spoke today for 15 minutes. Lula had suggested last week a summit of world leaders to help to find an option to the current situation. Unfortunetaly the reports I read about their conversation today say that both agree that there is little to be done now.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i have a question. i hope i didn't miss this in the first place, but what would be the worst case scenario of all this? what i mean by "all this" is the impending war without un's approval. could the united states be kicked out of the united nations?