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

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?

old europe wrote:

...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.

Because we don't believe that the other justifications you present had anything to do at all with why we attacked Iraq. Nothing at all. They are just convienent excuses used now to explain away our sins. Sheesh Cycloptichorn

Via your definition, georgeob1, that international law is "that set of norms and rights which sovereign nations generally accept":

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed by 97 souvereign nations. I would call this general acceptance.

It was not signed by China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. And the USA.

"there was no mandate to not invade Iraq "



silly person

it doesnt work like that

you cant have a mandate not to do something

its like saying the UN never resolved not to be American

There are about 150 nations in the world, so your implication about the number of non-signatories is incorrect. I also believe that India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other populous states have also rejected this foolish treaty. You have grossly misrepresented the facts of the matter.

Governments representing a large majority of the world's population have rejected this treaty.

The key question you have posed is, "Should acceptance of the treaty of Rome which established the ICC become a mandatory element of international law, given these facts and the willingness of the signatories of the treaty to forcibly enforce their will?"

I will leave thart answer to you.

The key question you have posed is, "Should acceptance of the treaty of Rome which established the ICC become a mandatory element of international law, given these facts and the willingness of the signatories of the treaty to forcibly enforce their will?"

I will leave that answer to you.

We may be a poodle, but I vehemently object to being characterized as a French poodle.

But they don't include China, India, Pakistan, and others. My point stands.

yes agree blatham, there is sometimes the most insufferable arrogance about both

oe

I'm willing to carry on discussing, its the others I worry about