UN "credibility" at stake.... (International law types...)

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


1441 only passed unanimously because it was ambigous. That the UN has doen nothing to enforce countless other resolutions, such as 262 (the other famous number of the UN) did not do much to "destroy its credibility". That soemone has the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

IIRC, 242 (not 262) calls for Israel to return to its '67 borders in the context of peace treaties with the beligerent parites. It did not call for any unilateral withdrawal.

When Israel made its deal with Egypt, it did return to the '67 borders and did dismantle its settlements.

Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians.

The Syrians and Palestinians and all other Arab states still have not negotiated permanent peace treaties with Israel.

So, where is the UN failing to enforce 242?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
So the issue comes down to whether Iraq, by its actions, trully represents a danger for the maintanence of international security as Germany and Japan used to.

It is in that simple point that we all disagree.

This assumes that the threat Germany and Japan provided sets a standard. The level of threat can only be determined by the security counsel. 1441 demonstartes that, at least for now, Iraq has crossed the thresehold.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
So the issue comes down to whether Iraq, by its actions, trully represents a danger for the maintanence of international security as Germany and Japan used to.

It is in that simple point that we all disagree.

GePaP, the question is whether Saddam is in violation of the ceasefire agreement and its implementing resolutions which all call for Saddam to disarm. There is no need to revisit the issue of whether his failure to disarm, taken out of context, is a threat to peace and security. We are not writing on a blank slate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Any lawyer or any court would also likely tell you that the term "international security" is so overly broad and ambiguous as to be essentially meaningless.

As is the term 'mens rea' in criminal procedings, not that that stops people .

the security and territorial integrity of Kuwait seem to have been "restored" in 1991, and "maintained" ever since

LOTM is correct. This doesn't deal with Kuwait at all. If it is judged that Iraq is a threat to peace, then force can be used to change or mitigate that threat... including war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

In reality, isn't this the way things have always been?

The UN is at least an attempt to give "non-powers" a voice. Something they have rarely had in history.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take.

Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

You are right.

Perhaps not intended as a joke, but now certainly is.

But one thing: Don´t confuse the UN with International Law. The latter would still exist, if the former didn´t.

International Law is what it is. There is just no body to enforce it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


You are right.

Perhaps not intended as a joke, but now certainly is.

But one thing: Don´t confuse the UN with International Law. The latter would still exist, if the former didn´t.

International Law is what it is. There is just no body to enforce it.

OH MY GOD!! We agree on something!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


OH MY GOD!! We agree on something!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


You are right.

I should include this in my signature line.

[DinoDoc]

Credibility? UN? Do those words really belong together when it comes to influencing State behavior?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why do you think I used quotes, DD?

[Ned]

Again, I would like to dissent from MTG's conclusion. The issue is not whether Saddam today is a threat to peace and security, the issue is whether he will disarm in compliance with the ceasefire agreement and the SC resolutions. The SC previously found that Saddam's possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to be a threat to world peace and security and ordered Saddam to disarm. The inspections regime and sanctions have not worked. Other measures are now in order.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
The SC previously found that Saddam's possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to be a threat to world peace and security and ordered Saddam to disarm.

The question is if the SC was ever meant to have the right to 'order' something; where in the UN Charter does it say the SC is legitimized to give orders to souvereign states?

I read the UN Charter as having the purpose to *protect* souvereign states from just such usurpations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


The question is if the SC was ever meant to have the right to 'order' something; where in the UN Charter does it say the SC is legitimized to give orders to souvereign states?

I read the UN Charter as having the purpose to *protect* souvereign states from just such usurpations.

But this is the point of conditional surrenders, isn't it? That is what happened in '91. Terms were dictated to Saddam. He accepted. The question is, will the SC enforce the terms.

The League of Nations did not and could not enforce the Versailles agreement. Will the UN become a League of Nations? That is the question on the table.