georgeob1 wrote:The point has been made that the U.S. government violated treaty law (The Treaty of San Francisco in which the U.S. and other States established the UN and its charter) by invading Iraq. Under the Charter signatory nations renounced aggressive war, but retained the right of serf-defense. (There is other verbiage amplifying all this but I have expressed the essence of it accurately.) The UN Security Council was given the authority to deal with exceptional cases threatening general security, but even in these was expected to abide by the Charter.
Correct.
georgeob1 wrote:Joe from Chicago is certainly correct in asserting our Constitution recognizes such treaty obligations as binding law. So the question remains, - Did the U.S. government break its own law and international law by invading Iraq? No action has been brought in any U.S. court on the question, and, given that the Congress of the United States authorized the action, I don't see that any judicial or enforcement action is possible. No action has been brought in the UN either. Admittedly, we have a veto in the Security Council and could readily stop any attempt to express a judgement against us in this matter. However, it is significant that no such action has been attempted by any of the members of the Security Council. There is no charge against us on the International law aspect of this supposed crime, - we are not accused.
This is hardly significant. Just because there are no charges filed doesn't mean that no crime was committed. In some cases, it just means that the persons or entities responsible for enforcing the laws are too timid or afraid to carry out their duties.
georgeob1 wrote:These points are not as quibbling as they may appear. There are several forms and levels of law, and laws that are not enforced, or which are incapable of enforcement, are not laws in the same sense as (say) the criminal laws of most countries. Some countries claim extraordinary legal jurisdiction over what we (and others) consider to be international waters or international straits or passages accessible to all under our interpretation of international law. We (and others) routinely sail our ships through disputed passages, often only to establish the precedent and our rights under our interpretation of the law. Indeed the ultimate historical test for just what constitutes international law (given the many different and often competing claims put upon it) is the regular and effective enforcement of it by a sovereign nation or collections of them.
Actually, I think this is correct. Indeed, as I have mentioned
before:
International law is changing all the time. And typically the law reflects practice rather than vice versa, so what the US does today may be recognized as the international norm tomorrow. Of course, that may not be a good thing -- not even for the US.
Stated differently, what the US does today in contravention of international law may become the common practice tomorrow -- just as the invader of today may become the invadee of tomorrow.
georgeob1 wrote:The history of the last 60 years is rife with actions which can arguably be construed as violations of various segments of the UN Charter, and which have seen no response whatever from that august body. It is neither reasonable nor fair to expect the UN to rise above the level of political and legal development of the mass of its members. No standards have been established for membership. as in the case of the EU: virtually every nation in the world is represented in the UN General Assembly, and all have ratified the Charter. We must accept and deal with the UN as it is, not as we may wish it in some fanciful abstract excursion of thought. "Laws" that as a matter of practical fact do not bind some nations such as Rwanda, Congo, Zimbabwe, the Former Soviet Union, Islamist extremists operating from and with the cooperation oif several countries, and many, many others, cannot be rigorously applied to others - unless they wish to be the fools of the lawless.
Not only must we accept the UN as it is, but the US must also accept its treaty obligations as
they are, and the US's treaties obligate it to refrain from launching pre-emptive wars.
georgeob1 wrote:In 1991 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait without evident provocation. By the conventional standards of international law this was clearly and unambiguously an aggressive war that violated the UN Charter. Ironically, Saddam had fairly good historical and national strategic arguments on his side. Kuwait was largely the creation of British imperialists who wanted a small controllable government in "control" of the principal then known oil fields. In Ottoman terms it was not distinct from the province of Basra, and before that it had been under the rule of Bagdad. Who was right?
In that war, clearly the UN-backed coalition was right.
georgeob1 wrote:The US led a coalition that later obtained UN sanction for driving Iraq out of Kuwait, and Iraq signed an agreement with the coalition principals establishing the terms of restored peace between them. .The U.S. has argued that Saddam failed to comply with the agreement settling that dispute and that, as a result it has a right to act against Iraq under the original sanction. Later, during the dispute over the WMD matter, the U.S. claimed - at the time it was passed - that the Security Council ultimatum to Saddam authorized us to take action if he failed to comply. France quickly expressed a contrary view, but this was a contest of interpretation, not fact. That dispute has never formally been resolved, at least to my knowledge. So the present situation is that the U.S. claims that it has acted fully in accordance with Security Council Resolutions, while other Council members have argued the to the contrary. The Council itself has not resolved the matter. Finally the U.S. has argued that it was acting in self-defense in the face of an international conspiracy - that had already attacked us and which vowed continued attacks- involving Islamists and certain authoritarian states coopertaing with them and supporting them, and that this alone justifies its action under the Charter. No contrary resolution has been passed by the Security Council.
It matters not that the UN Security Council has passed no resolutions condemning the US action. Just because the UNSC has failed to live up to its moral obligations does not absolve the US from its failure to live up to its legal obligations.
georgeob1 wrote:This is where the legal question stands.
This situation certainly does permit Joe from Chicago to argue that the U.S. has violated international law, but that is merely his opinion, not established fact. I would argue to the contrary, and I strongly believe the weight of evidence is with me.
I've identified my evidence. Where is yours?
