What are these 7 binding UN resolutions...

[M0rpheus]

That I keep hearing from my pub aquaintances? When they are refuting claims that this invasion is illegal. I one mention Neil Boortz, so I think that's where he got it from.

I don't neccessarily need the whole thing just the resolution #'s will do. I know how to do the rest. (RIF!)

[einniv]

1. Perhaps a simple Google will get you going?

Just go to google.com and search for:

iraq invasion illegal

Looks like a good place to start. Here are some snips from the first couple articles in the search.

From: http://www.notinourname.net/war/perle-20nov03.htm

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing ... international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."
- Richard Perle


The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.



--
Edited to add this link:
Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack, two U.S. legal groups said Thursday.

The U.N. Security Council's refusal to approve a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).

The two groups, the U.S. affiliates of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), supported an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors released Wednesday that called a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."

Such an action "would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force," they added.

[M0rpheus]

2. Great!

Thanks for the start...

Sometimes it's staring you right in the face.
I started by going straight to the UN, but that is a boatload of stuff to sort through.

Thanks again. :yourock:

[alcuno]

3. Welcome to DU, MOrpheus.

I'm just curious about the illegal argument. It's seems that if anyone is concerned with these "binding" resolutions, it would be the UN. If they didn't have a problem with it, why should Blair and Bush? Making the "binding resolution" argument doesn't make any sense when you are, in fact, going against the UN.

[M0rpheus]

4. I agree...

But the guy has the thought that since the UN has made threats through these resolutions, this legitimizes the U.S. invasion.
He specifically mentioned 678, 687, 1441 when I asked him for a little clarification. I have yet to read these though.

On the argument of the O'neil revelations he asserts that this was an extension of the Clinton admin policy on Iraq. And that Desert Fox was doing the same thing.

Thanks for the welcome.
I post here sporadically, as I feel like a guppy in a pond of real big fish. :scared:

[alcuno]

5. Oh the irony of using Clinton. Wait for his book.

The greatest problem with all these arguments is the fact that these were not the arguments made to the American people. They are interesting to debate as an afterthought, but truly not relevant. Can you imagine the reaction of the American people had GW stood up there and said that since President Clinton wanted regime change in Iraq, he was going to make it happen? Worse yet, can you imagine if he had said that he wanted to invade a sovereign country because of some UN resolutions? It wouldn't have been only the rest of the world laughing at him.

[M0rpheus]

6. I can't wait for his book...

That's my problem in this little debate I am having.
That he's using arguments that were not put out for public consumption. While he is discounting same.

I'm not the master of facts or anything like that, I just hate letting those wrong ideas just stand there in front of me. Which is why this is so frustrating.

Ask me about computers and I'll give you chapter and verse.
Still working on the politics (there's too many damned nuances).
Ah well... I'll get the hang of it.

[Guaranteed]

11. The invasion would have to have been specifically authorized

by the UN for it to be legitimate. And it wasn't. The US wasn't going to get authorization, so they didn't even bring up another resolution.

[camero]

7. Ask your pubbies

Why do they use UN resolutions for justification when they also say that the UN is irrelevent?

[arewethereyet]

8. UN Resolution Numbers 678, 687 and 1441

probably what you're after

[MrPrax]

9. Let's Look At The Record

The UN Charter states it quite clearly:

2(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

2(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'

But why bother...since the only time signed agreements are even debated are when there is a dispute with them and whatever US president happens to find an excuse to IGNORE them.

"In response, an angry crowd of demonstrators, chanting "Down, Down, U.S.A." took over the U.S. embassy building in Khartoum, which had been closed after the August bombings, Sudanese television reported. U.S. diplomats had been pulled out of Sudan in 1996, after the State Department decided it could no longer ensure their safety."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

[M0rpheus]

10. Thanks...

Good article.




Sidebar: You wouldn't happen to have played counter-strike once upon a time, would you Mr. Prax?