UN "credibility" at stake.... (International law types...) - Page 2

Ned · February 27, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

1441 only passed unanimously because it was ambigous. That the UN has doen nothing to enforce countless other resolutions, such as 262 (the other famous number of the UN) did not do much to "destroy its credibility". That soemone has the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

IIRC, 242 (not 262) calls for Israel to return to its '67 borders in the context of peace treaties with the beligerent parites. It did not call for any unilateral withdrawal.

When Israel made its deal with Egypt, it did return to the '67 borders and did dismantle its settlements.

Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians.

The Syrians and Palestinians and all other Arab states still have not negotiated permanent peace treaties with Israel.

So, where is the UN failing to enforce 242?

PLATO · February 27, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
So the issue comes down to whether Iraq, by its actions, trully represents a danger for the maintanence of international security as Germany and Japan used to.

It is in that simple point that we all disagree.

This assumes that the threat Germany and Japan provided sets a standard. The level of threat can only be determined by the security counsel. 1441 demonstartes that, at least for now, Iraq has crossed the thresehold.

Ned · February 27, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
So the issue comes down to whether Iraq, by its actions, trully represents a danger for the maintanence of international security as Germany and Japan used to.

It is in that simple point that we all disagree.

GePaP, the question is whether Saddam is in violation of the ceasefire agreement and its implementing resolutions which all call for Saddam to disarm. There is no need to revisit the issue of whether his failure to disarm, taken out of context, is a threat to peace and security. We are not writing on a blank slate.

Imran Siddiqui · February 27, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Any lawyer or any court would also likely tell you that the term "international security" is so overly broad and ambiguous as to be essentially meaningless.

As is the term 'mens rea' in criminal procedings, not that that stops people

.

Quote:

the security and territorial integrity of Kuwait seem to have been "restored" in 1991, and "maintained" ever since

LOTM is correct. This doesn't deal with Kuwait at all. If it is judged that Iraq is a threat to peace, then force can be used to change or mitigate that threat... including war.

MichaeltheGreat · February 27, 2003, 20:12

Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

PLATO · February 27, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

In reality, isn't this the way things have always been?

The UN is at least an attempt to give "non-powers" a voice. Something they have rarely had in history.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

You are right.

Perhaps not intended as a joke, but now certainly is.

But one thing: Don´t confuse the UN with International Law. The latter would still exist, if the former didn´t.

International Law is what it is. There is just no body to enforce it.

PLATO · February 27, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

You are right.

Perhaps not intended as a joke, but now certainly is.

But one thing: Don´t confuse the UN with International Law. The latter would still exist, if the former didn´t.

International Law is what it is. There is just no body to enforce it.

OH MY GOD!! We agree on something!

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

OH MY GOD!! We agree on something!

MichaeltheGreat · February 27, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

You are right.

I should include this in my signature line.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 21:14

Credibility? UN? Do those words really belong together when it comes to influencing State behavior?

MichaeltheGreat · February 27, 2003, 22:14

Why do you think I used quotes, DD?

Ned · February 27, 2003, 22:16

Again, I would like to dissent from MTG's conclusion. The issue is not whether Saddam today is a threat to peace and security, the issue is whether he will disarm in compliance with the ceasefire agreement and the SC resolutions. The SC previously found that Saddam's possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to be a threat to world peace and security and ordered Saddam to disarm. The inspections regime and sanctions have not worked. Other measures are now in order.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The SC previously found that Saddam's possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to be a threat to world peace and security and ordered Saddam to disarm.

The question is if the SC was ever meant to have the right to 'order' something; where in the UN Charter does it say the SC is legitimized to give orders to souvereign states?

I read the UN Charter as having the purpose to *protect* souvereign states from just such usurpations.

Ned · February 27, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

The question is if the SC was ever meant to have the right to 'order' something; where in the UN Charter does it say the SC is legitimized to give orders to souvereign states?

I read the UN Charter as having the purpose to *protect* souvereign states from just such usurpations.

But this is the point of conditional surrenders, isn't it? That is what happened in '91. Terms were dictated to Saddam. He accepted. The question is, will the SC enforce the terms.

The League of Nations did not and could not enforce the Versailles agreement. Will the UN become a League of Nations? That is the question on the table.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
But this is the point of conditional surrenders, isn't it? That is what happened in '91. Terms were dictated to Saddam. He accepted.

So North Korea is right to threaten the US with A-bombs, because it sees them as violating some vague terms of the cease-fire? Should the SC support North Korea?

chequita guevara · February 28, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Is it technically an offensive war though? You could consider it a defensive war, the UN set down certain terms of cease fire after Gulf War I, we could simply say that Iraq isn't honoring those terms thus voiding the cease fire, thus making this a part of Gulf War I which was a defensive war.

You do Orwell proud.

MichaeltheGreat · February 28, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"to authorize offensive invasion of a recognized state and force regime change, for any reason?"

Is it technically an offensive war though? You could consider it a defensive war, the UN set down certain terms of cease fire after Gulf War I, we could simply say that Iraq isn't honoring those terms thus voiding the cease fire, thus making this a part of Gulf War I which was a defensive war.

Gulf War I was an offensive war both tactically and strategically - at least from our side. The difference is that it was an offensive war with a limited and pre-defined objective on the ground.

The forces which ejected the Iraqis from Kuwait were not the same as those attacked by the Iraqis, there was a months long cessation of military action, and the Iraqis fought from static, dug in positions, with the exception of a disorganized (and from intel indications, unauthorized) one night incursion into al Khafji by a slightly understrength Iraqi infantry battalion.

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 01:18

MtG, as stated, it gives the minor states a say before the powers go off on their escapades. And having five countries with veto power tends to prevent any aggresive action backed by the UN. You can see that it has worked from history.

Ned · February 28, 2003, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

So North Korea is right to threaten the US with A-bombs, because it sees them as violating some vague terms of the cease-fire? Should the SC support North Korea?

I agree that we have to observe the terms of an Armistace if we expect the other side to abide by it. But, if NK withdrew and we asked the SC for sanctions, the issue of our own compliance would be on the table.

Now, if NK, instead of withdrawing, were to ask the UN to enforce the Armistace against us, it couldn't because we have a veto.

But the point remains, if the UN assumes responsibility for enforcing the terms of an Armistace, they cannot reneg on that responsibility or else no one will trust the UN. The UN will then be unable to get wars ended with conditional Armistaces. This is not in the world's interests.

I personally think the UN record is abysmal. This whole series of events surrounding Saddam stinks so bad that I believe the damage to the UN's reputation has already been done.

I am also reminded of Kosovo. Didn't Yugoslavia surrender on the condition that the UN disarm the KLA? Did that happen?

KrazyHorse · February 28, 2003, 01:54

Quote:

Now, if NK, instead of withdrawing, were to ask the UN to enforce the Armistace against us, it couldn't because we have a veto

States may not veto SC actions directly against them.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MtG, as stated, it gives the minor states a say before the powers go off on their escapades. And having five countries with veto power tends to prevent any aggresive action backed by the UN. You can see that it has worked from history.

The veto powers are the best thing about the SC. Otherwise, we would have thousands of resolutions, giving about everybody any casus belli he could dream of. The veto is unfair, but the main cause of what little sanity is left in the operation.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Now, if NK, instead of withdrawing, were to ask the UN to enforce the Armistace against us, it couldn't because we have a veto.

So has France. And if they know what´s good for them (and, accidentally, for Europe, and for the world), they will use it.

Ned · February 28, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Gulf War I was an offensive war both tactically and strategically - at least from our side. The difference is that it was an offensive war with a limited and pre-defined objective on the ground.

The forces which ejected the Iraqis from Kuwait were not the same as those attacked by the Iraqis, there was a months long cessation of military action, and the Iraqis fought from static, dug in positions, with the exception of a disorganized (and from intel indications, unauthorized) one night incursion into al Khafji by a slightly understrength Iraqi infantry battalion.

MTG, I hope you are not arguing this to demonstrate that the cease fire terms were unwarranted. If you are, then by your logic Britain's war against Germany in '39 was unjustified.

Ramo · February 28, 2003, 02:20

The UN only has "credibility" insofar as the powers that be back its decisions. In which case, they don't need UN credibility to get something they want done. The idea that Iraq defying the UN and gets away with it is pretty much irrelevent. We do the same thing. Does that mean that the UN needs to organize an invasion against us?

As for legal authority to implement UN decisions, legal authority exists if and only if there's force backing up these legal proclamations. If Shrub and the rest of chickenhawks get their way, for all intents purposes, the US is the legal authority behind this UN "decision."

Ned · February 28, 2003, 02:21

Article 27, Section 3: Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

It appears that the USSR could not have vetoed the SC resolution calling for the defense of SK. The USSR was a party to that conflict by directly aiding NK.

Regardless, has the SC ever even entertained a resolution against a permanent member? I doubt it.

Ned · February 28, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
The UN only has "credibility" insofar as the powers that be back its decisions. In which case, they don't need UN credibility to get something they want done. The idea that Iraq defying the UN and gets away with it is pretty much irrelevent. We do the same thing. Does that mean that the UN needs to organize an invasion against us?

As for legal authority to implement UN decisions, legal authority exists if and only if there's force backing up these legal proclamations. If Shrub and the rest of chickenhawks get their way, for all intents purposes, the US is the legal authority behind this UN "decision."

What UN resolution has ever been made against a permanent member?

The permanent members are the UN "muscle." What this means, of course, is that an SC resolution that called for war but that was not supported by a single permanent member may go uneforced because of lack of means. To some extent, the resolutions introduced by the Arabs against Israel are meaningless because they are not backed by a single permanent member willing to enforce them.

Ramo · February 28, 2003, 02:39

ICJ ruling against the US wrt Nicaragua. We haven't respected it. And we still owe 'em a few billion dollars.

MichaeltheGreat · February 28, 2003, 02:41

Ted: Nope, I'm just pointing out that Shi's contention that GWI was a defensive war is incorrect. (The Desert Shield early speedbump phase in Saudi was defensive, but Desert Storm/Desert Sabre were classically offensive operations)

Even if I was making that argument, it would have no correlation with Britain's declaration of war in 1939, which was part of a bilateral treaty obligation.

The cease fire terms themselves, and the terms of the UNSC resolutions, tend to get blurred, either deliberately, or by lack of knowledge. There are two distinct documents - a signed agreement for cessation of hostilities, which is the battlefield document, and UNSC Resolution 678, which was passed four days later.

Iraq has substantially complied with the terms of the cessation of hostilities - they returned POW's, bodies, or at least most of them (one can argue without proof that they kept some), property removed from Kuwait, (well, some of it, but it's not like everything can be accounted for), and they stood down and removed what was left of their units from the KTO.

Iraq obviously hasn't complied with many items in the series of resolutions starting with 660, but that's addressed in 678 and later resolutions, not in the cessation of hostilities agreed to by the military authorities of the member nations.

That being the case, the "violation of the cease fire, so we can go back in and resume hostilities under that aegis" argument fails. The US certainly has the ability to act any time it wants, but the authority to act is not pre-packaged into the actual cease fire, it comes (if at all, which is the debate within the UNSC now) from the UNSC itself, not from the cessation of hostilities agreement (cease fire)

MichaeltheGreat · February 28, 2003, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Article 27, Section 3: Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

It appears that the USSR could not have vetoed the SC resolution calling for the defense of SK. The USSR was a party to that conflict by directly aiding NK.

Regardless, has the SC ever even entertained a resolution against a permanent member? I doubt it.

A party to a conflict would be the actual combatants - using the directly aiding definition, almost any state could be deemed a party to a conflict. Simple thing is the USSR would never have agreed it was obligated to abstain.