Further Evidence that resolution 678 does not YET give the United States the right to attack the country of Iraq. Again, this is from the "American Society of International LAW". It is an arrticle written specifically about Resolution 1441.
AS I have been saying and saying, and the Lawyer's opinion below clearly demonstrates:
#1 1441 Declares Iraq In Material Breech
#2 1441 Provides Iraq another Chance
#3 1441 Warns of Severe Consequence
#4 1441 Does not in any way shape or form "SUSPEND THE CEASE FIRE" resolution of 687.
They author states:
Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies? military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678. It might also invite an argument that any party to the U.N. Charter could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision because the material breach would pose a threat to international peace and security and would therefore radically change the position of all U.N. member states under Resolution 687. The argument would point out that the breach would relate to weapons or materials capable of mass destruction that, if put to use, could have an impact not just on regional security, but on worldwide security.
The Author continues to point out:
Other states could argue that since the Security Council has decided in Resolution 1441 that certain conduct by Iraq amounts to a material breach, but the Council did not at the same time suspend its own cease-fire and instead decided to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations under Resolution 687, only the Council can decide later that Iraq has not cooperated fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441 and that the cease-fire consequently is no longer in force. For example, the representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. It is based on the Charter-based principle that disputes should be settled peacefully, and that only the Security Council can determine when there is a need for coercion. It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.
The last line above is very telling. LETS ALL REPEAT IT SHALL WE:
Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.
and again:
Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.
and again:
Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm
Happy Reading everyone. The sad part is the more I read, the more I am concerned with us continuing to look like a bully on this issue.
PEACE