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

[Comrade Tribune]

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

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So here's my first question of the day:

Is there anything in the UN Charter, or any other body of international law related to the UN, or to the agreements member nations make when joining the UN, which gives either the Security Council or the entire General Assembly any "legal" authority to authorize offensive invasion of a recognized state and force regime change, for any reason?

No.

Thank you for asking.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
It looks like from this that the UN has the full right to use force against Britain and the US.

Not the UN: the Security Council.

But, the UK and the US have a veto that cannot be overriden.

So, practically, the SC cannot authorize any action against a permanent member.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Without Un security council approval, the US will never have "legal" justifications for anything unilateral: maybe moral and prudential, but never legal. The UN does not allow for posses's.

If we were enforcing a UNSC resolution out of nowhere you would be correct. That is not the case wrt to Iraq.

in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait had the right to defend itself, a right that pre-existed the UN charter. It had the right to call on other nations (like the US) to aid in its defense - likewise a preexising right. The US had the right as part of the response to Iraqi aggression to continue the war subsequent to the Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait - again a pre-existing right (NB the policy of the WW2 allies before they founded the UN ) the US and Kuwait entered a ceasefire with the Iraq in 1991 - a ceasefire which was ratified by UNSC resolution BUT exists independently of UNSC resolutions - similarly the conditions in that cease fire exist independently of the UNSC. Now the US, being a responsible power, and desiring to build up multilateral institutions (perhaps more so under the previous administration than at present) chose to go through the UNSC - at no time did the US forfeit its right to renew the state of war which existed prior to the ceasefire agreements,

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



The moral argument has no say in the UN right now, National sovereignty trump Human rights, so authorizing UN action intended for regime change unless everyone sees that regime as a real threat is a highly poisenous thing.

as per the precedent of Kosovo, wich has not been recgonized by the UNSC, Russia, or China, but which WAS supported by both France and Germany human rights can trump national sovereignty in the case of an imminent or ongoing act of genocide. This has not been invoked as a legal casus belli, since there does not seem to be an ongoing or imminent genocide in iraq, and there is no precedent for human rights violations short of genocide, or 12 year old acts of genocide providing such grounds. This is a grey area of international law at this point.

It is certainly justified to use a moral argument when the opponents of force themselves invoke moral arguments, which they regularly do (why for example must war be "a last resort" - from the legal point of view war may be justified even when other options exist - the argument that it must be a last resort is partly prudential, but even more a moral argument)

[GePap]

LoTM: The problem I have with your explination is that the UNSCR authorized actions solely on the basis of restoring the territorial integrity of the sovereign state of Kuwait. The forces attacking Iraq had no authorization for anything more. How then can one construe that the ceasefire agreement between the two forces, even if broken, would all of a sudden give the US authorization for taking steps, such as reigme change and the occupation of another soverign member of the UN,t hat it nevr had going into said ceasefire?

The UN mandate for the US in the Gulf was to free Kuwait and keep it free, and it said nothing about whether Saddam stayed in power or not, which was another huge reason why we did not go to Baghdad in 1991.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The UN CAN use force if it decides to.

That part's not an issue. It's the sticky detail of "how much."

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

So yes, there is legal authority for a regime change if that regime is decided to be a threat to the peace, and sanctions are inadequate.

"Maintain or restore" would seem to be the operative words. Semantics and technical interpretations aside, (The Korean war never "officially" ended either) the security and territorial integrity of Kuwait seem to have been "restored" in 1991, and "maintained" ever since.

Obviously, the US is gonna do whatever it wants, and most likely, get the UNSC members to go along for one reason or another. In either case, though, it'll be pretty transparent that the UN is either a non-entity (if it does nothing), or else simply a finger-puppet (guess which finger? ) of the US to give a patina of international legal legitimacy to US policy.

[Edan]

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

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The UN wasn't involved in Afghanistan, but the Taleban weren't a generally recognized government anyway.

IIRC, there was a UN resolution on this.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That part's not an issue. It's the sticky detail of "how much."



"Maintain or restore" would seem to be the operative words. Semantics and technical interpretations aside, (The Korean war never "officially" ended either) the security and territorial integrity of Kuwait seem to have been "restored" in 1991, and "maintained" ever since.

The words are maintain and restore international security, NOT maintain and restore the territorial integrity of the state that has been invaded. Again, note the war during which the UN was founded. The allies did NOT seek to restore and maintaint the status quo ante bellum, - they souoght to maintain and restore international security by "unconditional surrender", occupation, and regime change.

[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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

If the notion is that the UN has the authority to do literally anything one or two permanent members of the UNSC can bribe or bully the other permanent members and the ten rotating members to go along with, then that's a rather interesting concept.

Maybe distaste for that concept is part of what is driving the objections of France, Germany and Russia.

[lord of the mark]

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.

But the point is that the UNSC has the right to do it, and that the UNSC voted to do it in UNSC 1441. Should they back down now, they will have indeed gutted their credibility.

[Ned]

I don't remember the precise circumstances to the US agreeing to a ceasefire in '91, but it appears that the ceasefire agreement did include Saddam's agreement to disarm. That agreement was endorsed by the UN.

We, the US and the UK, are principal parties to that ceasefire agreement. We should defer to the UN only so long as the UN is willing to enforce it. Otherwise we should have a right to enforce it on the grounds that we as principal parties to the original agreement and we have a legal right to see that it is enforced. The UN does not have the authority, IMO, to assume enforcement authority, fail in that duty, and then prevent the original parties from exercising their own right to enforce in the case of breach.

If the UN fails to enforce a ceasefire agreement where the principal parties on the prevailing side, the US and the UK here, are insisting on its enforcement, then the UN will indeed lose credibility. In the future, no one will bring the UN in to settle conflicts because the UN cannot be counted on to enforce the terms of any ceasefire agreements imposed on a losing side as a condition for the winning side to stop. Israel, for example, may simply continue its wars in the future, ignoring SC calls for ceasefires. India may not agree to an UN ceasefire if war breaks out with Pakistan and it is prevailing. How could it trust the UN to enforce disarmament terms on the Pakistani's. The South Koreans may insist that its own the next armistace line be the Yalu river and not the 38th parallel. The examples go on.

Saddam has had 12 years to disarm. But, as Hans Blix observes, Saddam still has not made the decision to disarm. He continues compliance on process and continues to evade and obstruct on substance. How much time should he have? Forever?

At least the French and Germans appear to think that the answer to this question is yes. But this answer clearly is inconsistent with the terms of the ceasefire, to the extent we understand them. Therefor, the French and German approach is tatamount to a UN failure to enforce and would justify a unlilateral US and UK declaration that the ceasefire agreement was in breach.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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.

If the notion is that the UN has the authority to do literally anything one or two permanent members of the UNSC can bribe or bully the other permanent members and the ten rotating members to go along with, then that's a rather interesting concept.

Maybe distaste for that concept is part of what is driving the objections of France, Germany and Russia.

Then they should have objected to UNSC 1441. They did not say then, AND they DO NOT SAY NOW that Iraqi WMD are not legally sufficient to be a casus belli. what they do say is that inspections are working, that war is not necessary yet etc. They DO NOT make the legal arguments that are made here, rather they make factual arguments of a different sort. I understand the desire to focus on the legal arguments, since the factual arguments made by France and Germany are indefensible. It does make me wonder why they dont resort to the stronger legal arguments, aside from have painted themselves into a corner with 1441. I think it is that they do not wish to limit what the UNSC can do - rather they wish to delay the implementation of 1441, because the succesful implementation of 1441 would add to the global power odf the United States, and they do not want to see that. Ther euis the hope that if the US goes in unilaterally, the costs to the US diplomatically and in the arab street will offset such gain in power as the US gets from military victory. This is more important than preserving the UNSC.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But the point is that the UNSC has the right to do it, and that the UNSC voted to do it in UNSC 1441. Should they back down now, they will have indeed gutted their credibility.

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.

[Arrian]

Actually, GePap, I think any time that the UN fails to enforce a SC resolution, it takes a credibility hit. A big one.

You're right about the ambiguity of 1441 being the only reason it passed, though. Both sides could portray it how they wished.

-Arrian