Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[St Leo]

What does opinio iuris mean?

Latin for "Religion" is "Religio" and Latin for "Jupiter" is "Iupiter". Is it clear enough yet?

[randomturn]

Hersh -- sorry, who ru? you sound like my old friend roland! things are good with me. working hard, starting education companies. kind of like a full time entrepreneur. fun!

no implication that Chi/Rus are moral agents. they are being quiet and not rubbing it in the face of the US. Same with Germany post-election. France is reviled here for enjoying it so much. No one here objects to honest principle, but these guys are making a charade of the UN. France is transparently using crisis to play peacock on the world stage. they aren't going for post-war goodies because they are much more enticed by opportunity to be "leader of the rest of the world" as they see it.

[HershOstropoler]

"you sound like my old friend roland!"

Bingo.

"starting education companies."

Wonna buy an old university (AD 1622) ?

"but these guys are making a charade of the UN."

Well yes, but so is the Bush admin.

"they aren't going for post-war goodies because they are much more enticed by opportunity to be "leader of the rest of the world" as they see it."

As I said, I think they are stupid, but not that delusional. Wrestling a good deal of concessions from the Bushies would serve that goal too, and it would be realistic.

[Ned]

Roland, the US government cities Kosovo as legal precedent for collective use of military force -- in that instance to stop genocide -- to justify collective action here to enforce UN SC resolutions.

What Kosovo stands for, IMO, is that such collective action is a legal to remedy of a violation of international law if the SC cannot itself act because of the obstruction of one (or more?) its permanent members, in that case, Russia. Essentially, the precedent establishes the right of collective action to remedy a violation of interantional law when the SC is split or when one or more permanent members veto's.

I remember the discussion of the legality of defending South Korea in the face of a Russian veto. 50 years ago it was thought that a resolution of the General Assembly would be sufficient to proceed.

However, Clinton never approached the GA. Nor did he seek the authorization of Congress. He simply formed a coalition, NATO, and declared war on Yugoslavia after an ultimatum.

The UN SC did not condemn Clinton, IIRC, even though Ramsey Clark wanted him tried for the crime of aggression before the Hague.

May I suggest, Roland, that if one wants to argue that Bush's actions are illegal here, that we first arrest Clinton and put him on trial. We cannot have a double standard, can we?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
May I suggest, Roland, that if one wants to argue that Bush's actions are illegal here, that we first arrest Clinton and put him on trial.

Somehow, I don't think there is much that would please some people more.

[Drake Tungsten]

If we want to talk about precedent, what cases justify the belief that all use of force must be approved by the Security Council? I doubt two cases (Korea and the Gulf War) negate the precedent set by every other military action since the end of WWII, which have not had UN approval. General state practice seems to be to ignore the UN, so why wouldn't such behavior be de facto international law?

[notyoueither]

The SC was not required in Korea for the US to land troops. It was required to get forces from most everywhere else to help out.

The SC was also not required for Desert Storm. Again, it was a good thing to have so that most everyone else would chip in.

The US and the UK could easily have cleaned the desert in Kuwait with or without the rest of the world as hangers on. Likewise, the absence of some of the hangers on would not have effected the outcome in Korea, most likely.

[DanS]

I think France will find out that approbium, even by the entire world community (or especially by the entire world community) is a very fickle and fleeting thing.

I used to think that France would try to protect its interests in the UN and take more a fence straddling position. Don't quite understand the game they have going on, except if they are suffering under delusions of grandeur.

rt: Nice to see you around!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If we want to talk about precedent, what cases justify the belief that all use of force must be approved by the Security Council? I doubt two cases (Korea and the Gulf War) negate the precedent set by every other military action since the end of WWII, which have not had UN approval. General state practice seems to be to ignore the UN, so why wouldn't such behavior be de facto international law?

Drake, I beleive the problem here is the UN Charter which outlaws the use of force except in self defense or collective self defense. If you examine most cases not condemned by the UN, the protagonists had a legal excuse for their war, even if it was a phony one they themselves set up - such as the one the Soviets used in Afghanistan.

This kind of legal pretext behavior is as old as the hills. I first encounted it when I read Caesar. Everything he did in Gaul, in Britain, in Germany and in crossing the Rubicon, was justified legally. And yet, we know exactly what he was actually doing, don't we?

[Adam Smith]

Does the current diplomatic manouvering have ramifications for the ME peace process? Eventually, hopefully, we get to a two state solution, with Isreal's good behavior guaranteed by the US, and Palestine's good behavior guaranteed by Europe. Can Europe, especially France, be trusted to keep their end of the bargain? If not, can there be a bargain?

Good to see you rt

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps, but I just don't have any patience with some people. This is a vice of mine, although I'll usually only respond rather than start it.

How do you deal with all that Kiwi-bashing and still retain your equanimity?

[HershOstropoler]

Ned:

The Kosovo precedent does not make law on its own. It also leaves a lot of questions open: what is a sufficient collective? what is a legitimate target? what kind of SC failure is required?

There's also the big difference that Bush and his ilk wanted an Iraq war from the beginning, under any pretext they could find. Is that ok then for China too? Or North Korea? India would have much better justification to attack Pakistan - is that ok, too?

"I remember the discussion of the legality of defending South Korea in the face of a Russian veto."

No case there as there was no Soviet veto.

[notyoueither]

Because the Americans realised the Soviets had forgotten to attend that day...

I am sure that public discourse happened prior to that.

[KrazyHorse]

"forgotten to attend"

Weren't they boycotting the SC?

[notyoueither]

So they foolishly, intentionally, forgot that the SC could derail the revolution on that day. They either forgot something, or never knew it to begin with.