Schroeder seeks Bush's support for the Security Council

[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-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/2813.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.