6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Nubclear]

Search "North Korean Anthem" on Google. Click your first result

[PLATO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Oh, you think? Wow. Well, think again. You don't file formal complaints in international law if there is no predefined jurisdiction. You don't need to file any formal complaint to express an opinio iuris as a state. Rambling in the SC is a prefectly legitimate way to do it.

There was no motion for resolution in the SC as it was certain to be vetoed, and neither the ICC nor the ICJ (whatever you mean by "the hague") have jurisdiction. What, they don't teach that at your highschool?

That you claim I'm the only one to state that position can only be attributed to overdosing on Fox "news".

Reeeeeeally???? Hmm.

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations

It acts as the judicial arm for the UN. Violation of 1441 by the US (i.e. attacking without specific mandate) would be in venue

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other

De facto support by the Security council.

In cases of doubt as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, it is the Court itself which decides.

Established jurisdiction.

The Court decides in accordance with international treaties and conventions in force, international custom, the general principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.

Broad based standards on which to rule.

Only States may apply to and appear before the Court. The Member States of the United Nations (at present numbering 191) are so entitled

Syria and Malaysia are elgible to file...but conspicuously haven't.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html

Next point. A motion in the USNC would certainly have been vetoed by the US...no doubt. The standard practice in this case is to file motion before the General Assembly where the non binding motions are subject to simple majority. They carry no force of law but are politically powerful.

Syria and Malaysia are elgible to file...but conspicuously haven't.

Third point. The ICC is the international court of arbitration. Where did you pull that out of?

Fourth point. No they don't teach incorrect crap in the high school I went to. Apparently, by your post, they did in yours.

Last point. "Fox" News overload? Have you got an al-jazera overload?

[HershOstropoler]

Dear PLATO,

"It acts as the judicial arm for the UN. Violation of 1441 by the US (i.e. attacking without specific mandate) would be in venue"

Darling, the states have instituted some happy limitations to the ICJ's powers.

"De facto support by the Security council."

Dream on.

"Broad based standards on which to rule."

Separate issue.
Finding the ICJ homepage doesn't make you a legal expert. You can't even differentiate between jurisdiction and applicable law.

"Third point. The ICC is the international court of arbitration."

Huh? You don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about.

"Fourth point. No they don't teach incorrect crap in the high school I went to."

Then where did you get that braindead garbage into the void of your head?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would they want the ME to be friendly if it weren't for the oil? I understand the power politics part, but why the ME? What's the purpose? Why not, say, sub-Sahara Africa?

Because, sub-Saharan African states don't kill many Americans or our allies . If the Arabs never discovered terrorism, I'm not sure Iraq 2003 would have occured (then again, that IS a very big 'what if', I conceed).

--

Oh, and the invasion of Iraq was not 'illegal', but neither is it technically 'legal' either. Without any real enforcement mechanism (other than individual states themselves), legallity in these cases is very variable, and depends on how one reads Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (if you believe the Charter to be custom). One can easily say that Iraq was not illegal because it was an intervention to support self-determination/for democracy, which have been suggested exceptions to the Article.

Without any real, binding judicial rulings on the issue, the duty of interpreting Article 2(4) is left to scholars, and they don't all agree.

[HershOstropoler]

"Without any real enforcement mechanism (other than individual states themselves), legallity in these cases is very variable"

Well enforcement mechanisms or decision-making bodies are always nice, but you still have to determine legality or illegality. It makes it more murky, but an act can still be full-technically illegal even in a decentralised system like this part of international law.

"(if you believe the Charter to be custom)"

Why a need for customary law?

"One can easily say that Iraq was not illegal because it was an intervention to support self-determination/for democracy, which have been suggested exceptions to the Article."

That's correct, although those exceptions conflict with non-intervention. More importantly, self-determination does not necessarily justify intervention, and it's simply too weak to derogate from a specific rule of treaty law through a general principle. You can make some more elaborate arguments, but they don't have more merit either.

Finally, I cannot see what this war has to do with self-determination or democracy, but then I might be just too cynical. Or just right, as usual.

[Sava]

The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

- Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why a need for customary law?

Because I don't think most people expect principles in the UN Charter to be binding international law (as opposed to those articles setting up the organization).

self-determination does not necessarily justify intervention

But it can at times .

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Sava

- Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

He was right it wasn't over in 6 months.

[Caligastia]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone brought this up already, but Bush never said that Iraq posed an 'imminent threat'. What he DID say is that we should stop Saddam before he BECOMES an imminent threat.

Find me ONE quote where Bush refers to Iraq as an 'imminent threat'.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by PLATO
It acts as the judicial arm for the UN. Violation of 1441 by the US (i.e. attacking without specific mandate) would be in venue

AFAIK they have no part in enforcing UNSC decisions. They prosecute crimes which are more fundamental (i.e. violations of the UN's basic charter) i.e. crimes against humanity and war crimes. Otherwise there would be legal action for every time somebody violates a UNSC resolution. Which is all the time.

There is no court, AFAIK, where you can sue a country for violating UNSC resolutions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why a need for customary law?

Because I don't think most people expect principles in the UN Charter to be binding international law (as opposed to those articles setting up the organization).

self-determination does not necessarily justify intervention

But it can at times .

Moral and legal justification are two different things....

[MRT144]

caligastia, he didnt say it but it was implied. you know it and i know it, and the american public knows bush was implying iraq was an imminent threat. i bet if we do some thread digging we can find quotes from our resident cons that support this idea that iraq was on the brink of something huge against us.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by MRT144
caligastia, he didnt say it but it was implied. you know it and i know it, and the american public knows bush was implying iraq was an imminent threat. i bet if we do some thread digging we can find quotes from our resident cons that support this idea that iraq was on the brink of something huge against us.

I'm thinking your the only one that knows it, I just wondered why they waited so long before doing something about the pyscho.

[MRT144]

elections

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
caligastia, he didnt say it but it was implied. you know it and i know it, and the american public knows bush was implying iraq was an imminent threat. i bet if we do some thread digging we can find quotes from our resident cons that support this idea that iraq was on the brink of something huge against us.

I think Bush did say that he wanted to forestall Saddam giving WMD to terrorist who would use them on the US. He was particularly worried about nuclear weapons, which even Bush said that Saddam did not have but was working to acquire. I do not recall Bush saying that Saddam himself would attack the US with WMD.