International Law;The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule:
-when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm -when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.
Added to this, bush himself has repeatedly said Iraq was a "future threat", that we "can't afford to wait until a future attack becomes imminent" and that he "never said the threat from Iraq was 'imminent'".
As well, the "gold standard" of US intelligence is the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, in which CIA Director George Tenet called the threat from Iraq "low";
George Tenet; "My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is also barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, 1986; ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)
Equally, Chapter VII does not apply, as the Security Council clearly voted against invading Iraq and have in fact declared the invasion illegal and in violation of the UN Charter.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htmAny claim that "material breach" of prior cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.
Under the UN Charter, which is the foundation of international law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and has been deemed so by the UN Security Council.
Pearl Harbor;Very few Americans would declare Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor to have been legal. Yet the motivation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour was to prevent a feared military buildup by the United States. In other words, a preventive strike of a perceived future threat. Also known as the 'Bush Doctrine'.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/ps-pwa030503.phpInternational legal experts regard Iraq war as illegalThe International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”
The rule governing self-defence applies only when an enemy attack has already taken place or is imminent. There is no legal sanction for a preventive war. Should a state regard itself as threatened by another a state, although no hostilities have taken place, the threatened state is obliged to call on the Security Council—the only body authorised to legitimise military action in such a case.
http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegalThe US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties.
A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,”
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01357.html Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crimeForty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity...
...the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.
http://law.anu.edu.au/cipl/Media/Waging%20war%20crimes%20Feb03.pdfWar on Iraq was illegal, say top lawyers-Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London
-Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague
-Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC
-Professor Vaughan Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford
-Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge
-Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htmIraq War Illegal, Lawyers SayMost experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html War would be illegalWe are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.htmlLawyers Tell Senate: Use of Force Against Iraq Without New Security Council Resolution Is Unlawful; Urge Congress to Uphold U.N. Charterhttp://www.wslfweb.org/docs/iraqpr.pdf Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annanhttp://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/16iraq.htmLet's not forget bLiar's own Foreign Secretary, Strawman Jack!Straw admits case for war in Iraq is weakhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9126.htmHow about Mr. Tony "I'm a big fucking liar" bLiar himself!"If military action proves necessary, it will be to uphold the authority of the UN and to ensure Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction, not to overthrow him. It is why, detestable as I find his regime, he could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."
http://www.sundayherald.com/print31827 OOPS eh Tony? The UN said HELL NO. Forgot about this little bullshit speech you made to those kids, didn't you. I got a very loooong memory for fucking war criminals, Tony. ;)
And Mr. Lord Goldsmith, admitting regime change would be ILLEGAL!http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=457242005Ya know, bLiar, ya really should stop spewing on about how invading Iraq for REGIME CHANGE was a good thang; forgot what Goldie told you? You know, that little ILLEGAL thing.
And as a star witness, bush's very own Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle!bush administration Richard Perle; War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal;...influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London:
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.htmlThere's more, but the above's a start. :D
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
