THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

And Walter, I don't wish to nitpick details on the structure of the U.N. The Security Council is a division of the U.N. and if you think the Security Council is not subject to the main governming body of the U.N., you have a very different understanding of that than I do.

Well we certainly have done that and with good results. So long as things are done in order, with honest and open motives, and reasonable ethics and justice are employed. But again such is done by agreement and it is temporal. Unless the accused are in custody, such would bear little weight I would think with citizens of a sovereign nation who did not agree to the trial.

Given that we feel that we are superiour to other nations,

and we feel that international law is whatever we believe it is,

how can we fault other nations for acting in the same way?

Cycloptichorn

OE, what I mean is, we could try the likes of Saddam Hussein, convict him, sentence him to prison and/or death, and he would not accept such a trial as valid in any way nor would he give one minute's concern for it unless we went in and got him. If some group of nations got together to try and indict our president or our government and we considered the charges bogus and the trial as having no authority, we would snub our nose at it. Wouldn't Germany? Wouldn't any soverign nation?

You have to have the crooks in custody before a trial means much.

How would that make a law 'international'? Wouldn't more states have to consent?

I can't see your point, George. If the US would say "We believe in this, therefore it's international law", that wouldn't make any sense at all.

If your point was to show that something like 'international law' doesn't exist - why were you referring to it?

I think international law is whatever we, the USA, says it is so far as we are concerned.

Sure, but you could issue arrest warrants to get the crooks, couldn't you? And if it wasn't just 'some group of nations', but 97 nations worldwide, wouldn't that help to further such extradition? Other measures could be taken, of course...

I have given you an accurate definition of what constitutes international law -- namely it is that set of norms and rights which sovereign nations generally accept. There is no government of the world or court with mandatory juriusdiction over sovereign nations.

These are facts. How you characterize them with respect to might and right is your affair, not mine.

...Therefore [states] wouldn't accept any legislative process outside their own consent. It follows that they would follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments under international law.

This does not apply to treaties between two or more states. In such case, the other state or states that are parties to the treaty have whatever rights the treaty grants them in the event of their perception of a violation of the treaty by one or more of those parties.

I cannot see how this wouldn't apply to Iraq, then. If you argue that international law is what you accept as international law, and violations of international law are violations, then you would have to admit that, if Iraq says it didn't violate any laws, it didn't.

Iraq signed an armistice agreement with the UN (i.e., a treaty with the UN) obliging it to meet certain specific terms of that treaty. Multiple resolutions were passed by the UN alleging certain violations of that treaty by Iraq, and attempting to persuade Iraq to stop violating that treaty. If as alleged, Iraq violated that treaty, Iraq violated that which it had previously agreed to obey. Consequently, Iraq's claim that it didn't violate that treaty does not by itself constitute a veto of the UN's allegation.

On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998:

"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:

"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference.

" Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.

"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.

" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."
http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp

But you have no standing, no right to demand an answer.

Do you dispute the factual basis for what constitutes international law? Do you assert that these facts necessarily mean that anyone who acknowledges them therefore suscribes to the precept that might generally makes right in all human affairs? Alternatively one could suppose that, lacking a trustworthy world government, one might believe that for sovereign nations might makes right is the best that is available for them, but not applicable generally in human affairs.

In short are you after real understanding, or are you just trying to make a sophomoric debating point?