From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 17:39:08 GMT
Hi Sam,
I still think this argument is hopeless, but I'l point out what I
consider to be its glaring weaknesses.
An excellent analysis of the legality of the USG-UKG unilateral
action against Iraq is available here, at the Lawyers' Committee on
Nuclear Policy website:
http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf
This legal brief was performed by objective third party analysts,
which is to say that it was not performed by US-UK lawyers advocating
in favor of the attack. However, the US-UK arguments are included in
the analysis, along with numerous precedents of International Law.
I'll refer to points in this document below, using LCNP #. And will
of course consider other legal analysis you may provide.
> msh asks:
> What was unbearably different about the "present situation" that
> forced a choice between military action or diplomatic retreat?
sam:
Let me put the argument like this:
1: International law (IL) is a good thing.
msh:
Agreed
sam:
2: The preservation of IL depends, ultimately, on the use of force to
defend it (Pirsig's soldiers).
msh:
Agreed, but would emphasize that its preservation depends on the use
of legitimate force as determined by International Law, not on rogue
actions such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or the USG invasion of
Panama.
sam:
3. Iraq breached IL with the invasion of Kuwait, and was punished,
thus precipitating a ceasefire.
msh:
Right. Legitimate action determined by UNSCR 678, authorising the
use of ‘all necessary means’ to liberate Kuwait. (LCNP footnote, page
18). Once Kuwait was liberated, and the cease-fire was accomplished,
'all necessary means' action is no longer authorised by International
Law, unless explicitly granted by further UNSCR. (LCNP points 40-50,
page 19).
sam:
4. As part of that punishment, there were sanctions put into place
etc, to try and 'defang' the regime.
msh says:
Agreed. But nowhere is any UN member state granted "any means
necessary" enforcement of these sanctions. Alleged sanction
violations are to be processed through UNSC. In fact there is good
argument that even US no-fly zones over Iraq were in violation of
International Law. (LCNP point 43, page 20).
sam:
5. Those sanctions a) were breaking down (largely thanks to French
and Russian oil interests), and b) were causing huge human suffering
within Iraq
msh says:
Actually, the WORKING sanctions caused far more human suffering than
anything done by Hussein, but I digress.
Even if it could be proved that France and Russia were somehow
corrupt in their participation in the UN process, which is highly
doubtful, this would not legitimize unilateral rogue action on the
part of any member state. There are in place UN procedures for
dealing with accusations of "corruption" of member states, whatever
that means. Also, I hope you appreciate the irony in saying that
Russia and France were against the attack because of their oil
interests, given what I (and most of the world) claim to be one of
the obvious reasons for the USG attack in the first place.
sam:
6. The defence of IL therefore required the UN to support a military
removal of the Hussein regime.
msh says:
Nope. If the sanctions were indeed "breaking down" then
International Law requires further action by the UNSC; International
Law does not permit a "lynching" by a disgruntled UN member state.
(See my previous post, and LCNP points 50-60)
sam:
7. The UN was unable to act due to corruption/inadequacy/morality
(take your pick).
msh says:
See above. The US bailed out of the UN process because it didn't
like the way the process was going, that is, that the process was not
going to permit them to do what they wanted, which was to invade
Iraq. This is more of the "lynching party" defense.
sam:
8. The US therefore acted independently.
msh says:
Yes. They acted independently, but not legally or morally, as I
believe my quick look at your argument has revealed.
Talk later,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 18:55:23 GMT