Printable View
Just out of curiosity, who are these mysterious "professionals of international law"? Is this opinion unanimously shared among these people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Oh, and do you not believe in the rather popular notion of a person being "innocent until proven guilty" by an appropriate court of law? ;)
Professor Markku Koskenniemi, for example. I suppose you can read Finnish? I also remeber a group of Brazilian lawyers were going to try to get Bush into court. Bush himself doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty". He invaded Iraq and killed a lot of people before he had any evidence what so ever, and he still doesn't have evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
http://www.artto.kaapeli.fi/muut_jutut/M2003/e1205e
"Kehitys (05.12.2003 - Juhani Artto) Yhdysvaltojen hyökättyä maaliskuussa 2003 Irakiin, suomalaisten oikeusoppineiden ja tutkijoiden ryhmä esitti julkisesti, että hyökkäys rikkoo kansainvälistä oikeutta. "Yhdysvaltain sotilaallisella toiminnalla ei ole mitään kansainvälisen oikeuden tukea. Sota on laiton ja uhkaa kansainvälistä oikeusjärjestystä", kannanotossa todettiin.
Kannanoton allekirjoittajiin kuulunut Helsingin yliopiston kansainvälisen oikeuden professori Martti Koskenniemi totesi lokakuun lopulla Kehitys-lehdelle, että useimmat kansainvälisen oikeuden asiantuntijat ovat yhä samalla kannalla. "Yhdysvaltoihin ei kohdistunut Irakin taholta YK:n peruskirjan 51. artiklan tarkoittamaa hyökkäystä, joka olisi oikeuttanut ryhtymiseen sotaan.""
Translation: After the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, a group of law professionals and researchers stated publicly that the invasion is against the international law. "The US military operation doesn't have any backing from the international law. The war is illegal and threatens international law and order", said the statement. Professor of international law at Helsinki University, Martti Koskenniemi, who signed the statement among others said in October to the magazine Kehitys that most experts of international law still have the same view. "Iraq didn't pose that kind of threat meant by the 51st article of the UN charter towards the US that would have given the US the right to start a war".
Eki. I think it's very much open to doubt as to whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There are experts on both sides of that question, but do you really think it's relevant? I think the question is not whether the invasion was legal, but whether it was right. If it was the morally right thing to do, its legality or lack thereof, is, to my mind, of little importance. To see why, let me pose this scenario to you: a coalition is formed to go into Sudan and rescue the people of Darfur from the unfolding tragedy that we are all seeing over there. The nations of the coalition go to the UN Security Council seeking a resolution to intervene and stop the massacres, but China vetoes the plan, because it is seeking to establish closer ties with all African nations, including Sudan. Do the coalition nations then cancel the operation and let the killing continue? I think not. I think that the morally correct course of action in that case is to break the law and mount the rescue operation despite China's veto. Don't you?
I ask you another question. Is it right Israel has free hands to oppress it's Arab minority and neighbours because the US always vetos any resolution aimed against Israel? The veto right is bad in both hands, IMO. Like I've said before, I'd like these things be decided in the UN General Assembly. One nation, one vote, no veto. The Security Council should be scrapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
I was against the war, and I'm not bothered whether it was legal or not, largely because the issue keeps being parroted by people who want a quick and easy phrase with which to express their dislike of the conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
However, I don't think the war was right or justified, for all sorts of reasons too numerous to go into here. I would also say that the scenario you put forward is all very well, and of course one would hope that the coalition would do what the majority of people would see as the right thing. The trouble is that the members of that coalition wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they subsequently wanted to complain about China breaking international law in some way or other, even if the coalition nations had 'right' on their side in so doing.
The UN is very far from being perfect, but I tend to think that it's better to adhere to the rules it imposes than ignore them. After all, it is the only body of its type that we have, and I feel it's important. This is not to say that it doesn't require a root-and-branch reform, which it does.
Fair question, and my answer is an unequivocal yes. It is right that Israel has free hands to impose the occupation on the West Bank and Gaza strip, regardless of whether that occupation is legal under UN resolutions. There is a principle of law which holds that almost any law can be broken if it is necessary to do so for survival. So, for example, it is legal for me to kill a man if that man is pointing a gun at me and threatening to fire. Similarly, to put it in a context more closely analogous to the situation of the Jews, it was, to my mind, perfectly proper for Jews in the concentration camps to tear off strips of their uniforms to make foot coverings as they walked to their slave labour sites in winter, despite the fact that tearing those strips was against the law. Germans executed Jews for doing it because, under German law, the action constituted criminal damage to German government property. But I believe that the crime those Jews were committing, the illegality of their actions, I should say, was irrlevant. They did what they had to do to survive, because without the strips of cloth on their otherwise bare feet, their feet would have succumbed to frost bite, rendering the person immobile, at which point the inmate in question, now unable to work, would have been shot. So violating the law, for those Jews, was justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The same is true of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, in my view. It is clear that if the occupation were ended tomorrow, to comply with the law, the Arabs would slaughter the Jews on the day after and celebrate the Jews' destruction for many days after that. In order to forestall that genocide, the Jews are entitled to do what they are doing, regardless of the fact that a UN resolution might decree otherwise.
I agree with you that, generally speaking, it is better for nations to comply with UN resolutions than not. But you avoid answering the question I posed: in a situation where complying with international law would lead to a massacre of innocent people, as in Darfur, or, say, Rwanda, is it the principle of compliance that governs, or the principle of saving innocent life? You don't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Gannex, another well written post. The issue of whether a war is legal is a red herring raised by people like the FFL for their own purposes. War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. If you win a war, it was legal. If you lose a war, it was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Since you are ineligible to vote in an American election, I suggest you try to discuss something you might actually know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Thanks for that, agwiii. And I think you summarised the principle well. Law is supposed to further justice, not prevent justice from being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
This may be the first thing you have written that is true. If radical islamists are willing to die for their religion, then I can assure you that the soldiers of the United States will accomodate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki