Schroeder seeks Bush's support for the Security Council

[GePap]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 52

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

2. The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

4. This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.

So, to a certain degree, one can argue that NATO, an international group set up to maintain peace and security could, under the auspices of article 52, deputize itself to end a threat to regional stabilty even without full UN authorization.

Local roganizations like OAS, OAU, SEATO, perhaps even the Arab League, might be able to claim these local constabulatory powers.

The uS in the Iraq war of course was not acting with the agreement of any recognized international organization, but instead acted with the support of other states all acting independently of any exiting international organization.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, to a certain degree, one can argue that NATO, an international group set up to maintain peace and security could, under the auspices of article 52, deputize itself to end a threat to regional stabilty even without full UN authorization.

You could argue that. And you would be wrong.

[GePap]

And how do YOU read article 52?

Look, its even up there for you to check out.

Note of course that the Europeans actually have these things called international lawyers, that they actually listen to when finding out the legality of a war action (one of the interesting bits in those "unsubstantial Downing Street Memos). So, if the lawyers in the UK, France, and Germany OKed the war, my guess is that they probably saw it my way.

Compare that to the sap US lawyers that innitially wanted to claim the Iraq war legal under article 51

which reads:

Article 51
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.

[Drake Tungsten]

And how do YOU read article 52?

I read it as allowing regional organizations to work towards pacific settlement of regional problems. Agressive war is most definitely not a pacific settlement.

Kosovo was more of an "illegal" war than Iraq was. At least in Iraq there was a preexisted UNSC resolution that could be interpreted as allowing for military action if Saddam's regime failed to cooperate fully with international demands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And how do YOU read article 52?

I read it as allowing regional organizations to work towards pacific settlement of regional problems. Agressive war is most definitely not a pacific settlement.

Oh, so you missed :

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

The other two sections state that a peacefull solution should always be sought, and that all avenues in that direction must first be tried. But if you read any more of the charter, its pretty clear that that very first paragraph means that these local roganizations can take all steps to maintain international peace and security. That sometimes means war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Kosovo was more of an "illegal" war than Iraq was. At least in Iraq there was a preexisted UNSC resolution that could be interpreted as allowing for military action if Saddam's regime failed to cooperate fully with international demands.

And from which bit of the charter does that come from?

States individually have no power to themselves alone enforce Security Council resolutions.

[Drake Tungsten]

But if you read any more of the charter, its pretty clear that that very first paragraph means that these local roganizations can take all steps to maintain international peace and security. That sometimes means war.

That's not clear at all. The second section states that...

The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

Emphasis added. I think it's pretty clear that regional organizations can make efforts towards a pacific settlement, but if they feel military force must be used, they have to go to the UNSC for permission.

[GePap]

There is no injuction that local orgs. MUST bring the issue back to the Security Council.

That's what section 3 is for:

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

That it encourages does not mean it mandates a peaceful settlement in these situations.

And, of course,no part of section 2 invalidates section 1, which does seem to give local international organizations the ability to end any thread to regional peace and security as long as they follow the Purposes and Principals of the UN, and stopping ethnic cleansing sure does seem to fall under that category.

[Drake Tungsten]

Fine. Believe what you want to.

[GePap]

Your just bitter that the endless schtick you and DD have always used, the "Kosovo excuse" has finally been challenged with UN text.

Get over it. Sometimes, things come to an end.

But expect to see article 52 pop up anytime you or DD use that schtick again.

[Drake Tungsten]

You know GePap, it's not a victory for you when people get tired of dealing with you...

If you want to believe that Kosovo was somehow "legal" and Iraq was somehow "illegal", be my guest. I don't have the time nor the inclination to convince you otherwise. You aren't proven right just because I have better things to do, however...

[GePap]

That's not even the point Drakie Pooh.

Your assertions that Kosovo was illegal need to be backed up with something. Just saying "The UN security Council did not approve" does not cut it, specially when just two minutes of internet seraching comes up with wonderful little bits of the UN Charter itself that can be viewed as giving justification for said war.

When I say the war is illegal, I can actually claim some knowledge of the bit of "law" that supposedly makes it illegal, and can argue why Article 51 does not cut it, and ask exactly which article would allow any state individually to enforce UN resolulutions.

It called "put up or shut up" Don;t make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate or explain.

[Drake Tungsten]

Just saying "The UN security Council did not approve" does not cut it, specially when just two minutes of internet seraching comes up with wonderful little bits of the UN Charter itself that can be viewed as giving justification for said war.

It's not my fault that you have such a limited view of modern international law. And I'm sure as hell not going to give you a primer. I'll leave that to Imran (who's more qualified anyway).

A quick lesson, though. Using the text of the UN Charter to understand how modern international law really works is as silly as using the text of the US Constitution to understand how modern US constitutional law really works.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


It's not my fault that you have a such a limited view of modern international law. Using the text of the UN Charter to understand how modern international law really works is as silly as using the text of the US Constitution to understand how modern US constitutional law really works.

And just what, exactly, would this other international law be based on, in this instance, but the UN charter?



Anglo-Saxon law is based on precedent. The Napoleonic code and other legal system like it are codes in which each judge bases their decision solely on the text, not on past precedent or past decisions.

So, in the spirit of put up or shut up, what things have happened in the last 45 years that would give ANY credence to your statement that "modern international law" when it comes to the legality of a war, is based on anything other than an intepretation of the literal text of the UN charter? cause I am dying to know.

[notyoueither]

http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../2813.htm#n329

Our conclusion is that Operation Allied Force was contrary to the specific terms of what might be termed the basic law of the international community—the UN Charter...

[notyoueither]

Are you a higher authority than the Parliament of the UK, GePap? Do your two minutes of internet searching and selective reading of the UN charter trump them?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Your assertions that Kosovo was illegal need to be backed up with something. Just saying "The UN security Council did not approve" does not cut it, specially when just two minutes of internet seraching comes up with wonderful little bits of the UN Charter itself that can be viewed as giving justification for said war.

Really? This took less than 2 minutes.

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter8.htm

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../2813.htm#n329

Our conclusion is that Operation Allied Force was contrary to the specific terms of what might be termed the basic law of the international community—the UN Charter...

And its nice to see an argument made using the law that matters, the UN charter ( ).

Though I am surprised the government envokes Chapter VII and not Chapter VIII.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Really? This took less than 2 minutes.

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter8.htm

Oh, DD, did you have to upstage Drake so badly?



But what about

with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

And its nice to see an argument made using the law that matters, the UN charter ( ).

Though I am surprised the government envokes Chapter VII and not Chapter VIII.

Colour you shocked. I am sure the many lawyers who serve on the committee, and those that serve it, will feel suitably chastised for not anticipating your brilliance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Are you a higher authority than the Parliament of the UK, GePap? Do your two minutes of internet searching and selective reading of the UN charter trump them?

No. I guess I am in the same standing as the Government of the United Kingdom, or do two minutes of sreaching someone else's opinons allow yopu to trump them?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


No. I guess I am in the same standing as the Government of the United Kingdom, or do two minutes of sreaching someone else's opinons allow yopu to trump them?

I don't know, GePap. You are the one who is making a great deal out of searching the internet being one of the keys of wisdom.

That was the eighth link on 'kosovo illegal war'. I can understand you missed it, given that you only searched for two minutes.

Why don't you let us know when you've completed a more exhaustive study, and may therefore speak out of something other than your ass.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
But what about

with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

?

What about it? How would you say that Serbia falls with in the definition of enemy state used in paragraph 2?

[GePap]

I have seen the links on "Kosovo was illegal". That happens to be a CONTROVERSY.

Much more of a controversy than whether the Iraq war was fully legit and legal.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Well, although I think that Germany deserves to be a permanent member of the UNSC, I´m against it,
because it is just the institution of permanent seats with veto rights, which makes the Security Council a farce, as you just have to be a permanent member (or on really good standings with a permanent member) to block any decisions against your own country (even if these decisions would be justified, because, for example, you act as an aggressor against your peaceful neighbors)

It may be true that the SC is a farce, but as a practical matter, the guns keep the peace. The laws don't. World public opinion doesn't. The SC is a reasonable reflection of that bastard reality.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What about it? How would you say that Serbia falls with in the definition of enemy state used in paragraph 2?

Of course, cause Slobo was nothing more than a Nazi chetnick ally.

Can;'t you read?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
I have seen the links on "Kosovo was illegal". That happens to be a CONTROVERSY.

Much more of a controversy than whether the Iraq war was fully legit and legal.

Controversy in whose mind?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Controversy in whose mind?

Those of the British Parliment?

Another conclusion reached by Parliment:

We conclude that, faced with the threat of veto in the Security Council by Russia and China, the NATO allies did all that they could to make the military intervention in Kosovo as compliant with the tenets of international law as possible.

And they go on to finally supporting the war on moral reasons.

Just a simple math lesson helps:

Number of Permanent SC members that thought the actions in Kosovo legal?

3 (US,UK, France) [majority]

Number of Permanent SC members that thought the actions in Iraq legal?

2 (US, UK)[minority]

[notyoueither]

Oh shucks. No way our way will get passed by the SC.

Where have you heard that before?

Are you really this stupid, or do you have no shame?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Of course, cause Slobo was nothing more than a Nazi chetnick ally.

Seriously though a reading of UN Charter doesn't seem to support the intervention in Kosovo as much as you'd like to think. Additionally in 1962 the International Court of Justice said that enforcement action is coercive action in the context of Chapter VII, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Now you could argue that the UN resolution 1199 found that there actually was a threat to peace but it would still be a nonstarter as NATO would still require UNSC authorization to lauch offensive action under Article 53.