26
   

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

 
 
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 02:21 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
International law says otherwise.

That's another lie.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 02:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And why did they say so?

Folly.

They should have automatically presumed that the accusations against them were entirely fraudulent. I always automatically presume so, and so far it has turned out to be the case every single time.


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

Sounds like a big waste of money.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 02:33 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
International law says otherwise.

That's another lie.

No, the fact that international law allows for preemptive self defense is not a lie.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 03:15 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Sounds like a big waste of money.
That's the least they could do after they'd officially made an admission of guilt.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 04:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
That's the least they could do after they'd officially made an admission of guilt.

I had a response to that, but it sounded like I was trying to be rude, which wasn't my intention, so nevermind.

I also did a quick search to see if there were any cases of Israeli wrongdoing in Cast Lead that I'd somehow missed. As expected, I found none.

I did however find a neat picture, which I was previously unaware of, of white phosphorus being used in Gaza:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100212-world-press/ss-100212-world-press-05.ss_full.jpg
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 06:03 am
@oralloy,
It's either a lie or a show of ignorance on your part. I think the former.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 07:19 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
It's either a lie or a show of ignorance on your part. I think the former.

No. The fact that international law allows and approves of preemptive self defense is the complete and absolute truth.

For the record though, I'm the last person you will ever hear lie. If I'm wrong, it will be due to an honest mistake.

(But I'm not wrong, at least not this time.)
Olivier5
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 08:13 am
@oralloy,
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".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 09:32 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
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)

Defense against an armed attack includes preemptive defense.

Note: "The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law


Olivier5 wrote:
The problem with "pre-emptive self-defence" is that there's nothing that can distinguish that concept from "attack".

The Caroline test has been used to reliably make such determinations for 175 years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test
parados
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 09:52 am
@oralloy,
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.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 10:01 am
@oralloy,
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".

If the English text is a bit too clear for your taste, try the French version:

Quote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 10:27 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.

Israel did not target civilians with any weapons. Targeting civilians is a Palestinian tactic.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 10:28 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
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".

The majority of the world interprets it as incorporating the preexisting right of self defense without changing it.

I suspect (I don't actually know) that the French government interprets it this way too.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 11:53 am
@oralloy,
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.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 12:09 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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".



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.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 12:35 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
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.

"The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law


Olivier5 wrote:
Otherwise Iran could attack Israel preemptively. It would be chaos.

Iran could only attack Israel preemptively if Israel were on the verge of a major attack against Iran.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 12:36 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

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.


No it wouldn't. It means exactly what it says, that there was hostility between Syria and Israel. It doesn't say who cast the first stone, just that Syria increased it's bombardments, not that Syria started the bombardments.

In any event it's irrelevant. Israel started the war by attacking Egypt, not Syria. By that logic if Mexico fired a missile over America's border, America would be justified in an all out attack on Canada.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 12:36 am
@izzythepush,
Feeding the trolls.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 02:17 am
@oralloy,
Wiki's article needs to be corrected. It uses vague wording and provides no reference for its claim.

Let's have a closer look at UN members' opinion on this topic. Tom Ruys’ recent book “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice carefully analyzes state practice to determine whether customary international law permits states to engage in pre-emptive and/or preventive self-defense:

Quote:
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.


http://opiniojuris.org/2012/03/07/why-preventive-self-defense-violates-the-un-charter/
parados
 
  5  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 07:18 am
@oralloy,
I am curious what the military target is in that "neat" photo you posted. It looks like a civilian housing complex.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2021 at 08:25:49