Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

International law says otherwise.

And why did they say so?

(Additionally, Israel has given the UN $10.5m to the UN to repair its Gaza complex.)

oralloy wrote:

International law says otherwise.

That's another lie.

Sounds like a big waste of money.

That's the least they could do after they'd officially made an admission of guilt.

It's either a lie or a show of ignorance on your part. I think the former.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

No, you are wrong this time. The UN Charter, signed and even drafted by your very own country, only allows self-defense against an armed attack. Chapter 7 article 51:

Quote:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

(emphasis added)

The problem with "pre-emptive self-defence" is that there's nothing that can distinguish that concept from "attack".

Aucune disposition de la présente Charte ne porte atteinte au droit naturel de légitime défense, individuelle ou collective, dans le cas où un Membre des Nations Unies est l'objet d'une agression armée, jusqu'à ce que le Conseil de sécurité ait pris les mesures nécessaires pour maintenir la paix et la sécurité internationales.

It sure is "neat" that Israel is using white phosphorus against civilians. It must be "preemptive self defense" in case those kids grow up and decide to attack Israel.

Nah. "if an armed attack occurs" means exactly that: "if it OCCURS". It doesn't mean "if one thinks that it will occur at some point in the future".

No, you are wrong this time. The UN Charter, signed and even drafted by your very own country, only allows self-defense against an armed attack. Chapter 7 article 51:

Quote:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

(emphasis added)

The problem with "pre-emptive self-defence" is that there's nothing that can distinguish that concept from "attack". Since attacking your neighbor is prohibited, so is "pre-emptive self-defence".

Increased tensions and skirmishes along Israel’s northern border with Syria were the immediate cause of the third Arab-Israeli war. In 1967, Syria intensified its bombardment of Israeli settlements across the border, and Israel struck back by shooting down six Syrian MiG fighters.

No, the "majority of the world" (people? governments?) agrees with the charter exactly as phrased. In any case that's what they signed on... There's no international right to pre-emptive attack, and no support for such "right" among the UN members.

Otherwise Iran could attack Israel preemptively. It would be chaos.

In the article I posted earlier, it clearly stated that

Quote:

Increased tensions and skirmishes along Israel’s northern border with Syria were the immediate cause of the third Arab-Israeli war. In 1967, Syria intensified its bombardment of Israeli settlements across the border, and Israel struck back by shooting down six Syrian MiG fighters.

That would mean that Syria started hostilities.

This brings us to the third and last question, regarding the balance of majority and minority opinion among States. Interestingly, Reisman points to a ‘significant lack of comment’ on the interpretation of self-defence in the Reports of the High-Level Panel and the UN Secretary- General, which, nonetheless constituted ‘an attempt at adjustment of the Charter to meet part of the U.S. claim’. In light of this alleged tacit approval, one might be inclined to qualify the extended support for pre-emptive self-defence as a decisive shift in the opinio iuris of the international community. An analysis of State responses, however, learns that this conclusion is rather precipitate. Indeed, notwithstanding a number of positive (cf. supra) and rather vague reactions by several States, numerous UN Members opposed the acceptance of pre-emptive self-defence. Turkey, Argentina and Mexico, for instance, observed that the admissibility of self-defence in response to imminent threats was very controversial and warned that recognition thereof might lead to complications and abuse. Many States went even further and combined a rejection of the interpretation of Article 51 in the two Reports with an explicit affirmation that self-defence could only be exercised in response to an actual armed attack. In the words of Pakistan: ‘We certainly do not agree that Article 51 of the Charter provides for the pre-emptive, preventive or protective use of force. In our view, the language of Article 51 is quite explicit and highly limitative. It provides for the use of force in self-defence only in case of an actual attack against a Member State’.

Comparable statements were submitted by the representatives of Vietnam, Belarus, Bangladesh, Algeria, Iran, Cuba, Costa Rica and Egypt. Other States that explicitly or implicitly voiced opposition to pre-emptive self-defence include China, India, Syria, Malaysia and Indonesia. China, for example, argued that Article 51 needed neither rewriting nor reinterpretation: ‘[E]xcept in case of self-defence against armed attacks, any use of force must have the authorization of the Security Council. Any “imminent threat” should be carefully judged and handled by the Security Council . . .’. India noted that the framers of the Charter never intended Article 51 to cover anything beyond its text. Significantly, the Non-Aligned Movement in 2005 issued a position paper emphasizing that: ‘Article 51 . . . is restrictive and recognizes ‘the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.’ This Article should not be re-written or re-interpreted. This is supported by the practice of the UN . . .’.

In the end, because of the resistance of a considerable number of UN Members to the acceptance of pre-emptive self-defence, the relevant recommendations of the High-Level Panel were not included in the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit of the UN General Assembly. No trace of Article 51 can be found in the resolution. Instead, paragraph 79 simply reaffirms ‘that the relevant provisions of the Charter are sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security.’

In light of the available evidence, it can be concluded that there has indeed been a shift in States’ opinio iuris insofar as support for pre-emptive self-defence, fairly rare and muted prior to 2001, has become more widespread and explicit in recent years. At the same time, it seems a bridge too far to claim that there exists today widespread acceptance of the legality of self-defence against so-called ‘imminent’ threats. Such assertion tends to forego the opposition of a considerable group of mainly Latin-American, north-African and Asian States. In the present author’s view, it would therefore be more appropriate to argue that the crack in opinio iuris among States has widened, without, however, identifying one approach or the other as the majority view. The implication is that, taking account of the Charter ‘baseline’ and the absence of a concrete precedent in State practice which convincingly demonstrates the international community’s support for some form of anticipatory self-defence, it is impossible to identify de lege lata a general right of pre-emptive – and a fortiori preventive – self-defence.