Schroeder seeks Bush's support for the Security Council

[GePap]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 52

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

2. The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

4. This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.

So, to a certain degree, one can argue that NATO, an international group set up to maintain peace and security could, under the auspices of article 52, deputize itself to end a threat to regional stabilty even without full UN authorization.

Local roganizations like OAS, OAU, SEATO, perhaps even the Arab League, might be able to claim these local constabulatory powers.

The uS in the Iraq war of course was not acting with the agreement of any recognized international organization, but instead acted with the support of other states all acting independently of any exiting international organization.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, to a certain degree, one can argue that NATO, an international group set up to maintain peace and security could, under the auspices of article 52, deputize itself to end a threat to regional stabilty even without full UN authorization.

You could argue that. And you would be wrong.

[GePap]

And how do YOU read article 52?

Look, its even up there for you to check out.

Note of course that the Europeans actually have these things called international lawyers, that they actually listen to when finding out the legality of a war action (one of the interesting bits in those "unsubstantial Downing Street Memos). So, if the lawyers in the UK, France, and Germany OKed the war, my guess is that they probably saw it my way.

Compare that to the sap US lawyers that innitially wanted to claim the Iraq war legal under article 51

which reads:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[Drake Tungsten]

And how do YOU read article 52?

I read it as allowing regional organizations to work towards pacific settlement of regional problems. Agressive war is most definitely not a pacific settlement.

Kosovo was more of an "illegal" war than Iraq was. At least in Iraq there was a preexisted UNSC resolution that could be interpreted as allowing for military action if Saddam's regime failed to cooperate fully with international demands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And how do YOU read article 52?

I read it as allowing regional organizations to work towards pacific settlement of regional problems. Agressive war is most definitely not a pacific settlement.

Oh, so you missed :

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

The other two sections state that a peacefull solution should always be sought, and that all avenues in that direction must first be tried. But if you read any more of the charter, its pretty clear that that very first paragraph means that these local roganizations can take all steps to maintain international peace and security. That sometimes means war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Kosovo was more of an "illegal" war than Iraq was. At least in Iraq there was a preexisted UNSC resolution that could be interpreted as allowing for military action if Saddam's regime failed to cooperate fully with international demands.

And from which bit of the charter does that come from?

States individually have no power to themselves alone enforce Security Council resolutions.

[Drake Tungsten]

But if you read any more of the charter, its pretty clear that that very first paragraph means that these local roganizations can take all steps to maintain international peace and security. That sometimes means war.

That's not clear at all. The second section states that...

The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.

Emphasis added. I think it's pretty clear that regional organizations can make efforts towards a pacific settlement, but if they feel military force must be used, they have to go to the UNSC for permission.

[GePap]

There is no injuction that local orgs. MUST bring the issue back to the Security Council.

That's what section 3 is for:

3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

That it encourages does not mean it mandates a peaceful settlement in these situations.

And, of course,no part of section 2 invalidates section 1, which does seem to give local international organizations the ability to end any thread to regional peace and security as long as they follow the Purposes and Principals of the UN, and stopping ethnic cleansing sure does seem to fall under that category.

[Drake Tungsten]

Fine. Believe what you want to.

[GePap]

Your just bitter that the endless schtick you and DD have always used, the "Kosovo excuse" has finally been challenged with UN text.

Get over it. Sometimes, things come to an end.

But expect to see article 52 pop up anytime you or DD use that schtick again.

[Drake Tungsten]

You know GePap, it's not a victory for you when people get tired of dealing with you...

If you want to believe that Kosovo was somehow "legal" and Iraq was somehow "illegal", be my guest. I don't have the time nor the inclination to convince you otherwise. You aren't proven right just because I have better things to do, however...

[GePap]

That's not even the point Drakie Pooh.

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.

When I say the war is illegal, I can actually claim some knowledge of the bit of "law" that supposedly makes it illegal, and can argue why Article 51 does not cut it, and ask exactly which article would allow any state individually to enforce UN resolulutions.

It called "put up or shut up" Don;t make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate or explain.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

It's not my fault that you have such a limited view of modern international law. And I'm sure as hell not going to give you a primer. I'll leave that to Imran (who's more qualified anyway).

A quick lesson, though. Using the text of the UN Charter to understand how modern international law really works is as silly as using the text of the US Constitution to understand how modern US constitutional law really works.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


It's not my fault that you have a such a limited view of modern international law. Using the text of the UN Charter to understand how modern international law really works is as silly as using the text of the US Constitution to understand how modern US constitutional law really works.

And just what, exactly, would this other international law be based on, in this instance, but the UN charter?



Anglo-Saxon law is based on precedent. The Napoleonic code and other legal system like it are codes in which each judge bases their decision solely on the text, not on past precedent or past decisions.

So, in the spirit of put up or shut up, what things have happened in the last 45 years that would give ANY credence to your statement that "modern international law" when it comes to the legality of a war, is based on anything other than an intepretation of the literal text of the UN charter? cause I am dying to know.

[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...