[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How about we just ask the UN who tagged them in the early 90s?

How about we ask the UN weapons chief who says Iraq's WMD were probably destroyed a decade ago too?

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, YOU Implied I meant that. I assure you I did not.

Own up to your mistakes Sub.

Then just say you didn't imply that, rather than telling me that I said you did ssy those things. Difference, note the question mark in my original post.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Zim - here. Now look at the US's attitude towards the UN, and what you said here. Then loko at how I asked you if it was your view of the matter, not that I said you said anything for certain.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wha? I think the UN has no backbone, but that doesn't mean when they had proof of something I am going to deny it.

That would be silly.

Me:
So what you're saying is, you're willing to abide by UN authority, or what the UN says, when it suits you?

Sub I never once said about me not abiding by their authority. I said that they had no backbone. Do you not understand the difference?

I said just because I think that they are spineless, that doesn't mean if they have facts, that are indeed true, I am going to ignore them.

Understand?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
How about we ask the UN weapons chief who says Iraq's WMD were probably destroyed a decade ago too?

eklipse, that is what I was speaking about..

The facts are, Iraq was suppose to show it had. Else how would we know they did?

Take Saddam's word for it?

THAT is what got Saddam in trouble.

Had he shown proof, none of this would have happened.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Sub I never once said about me not abiding by their authority. I said that they had no backbone. Do you not understand the difference?

I said just because I think that they are spineless, that doesn't mean if they have facts, that are indeed true, I am going to ignore them.

Understand?

God, you're thick. That is why I asked you if you did, or not, think that. I asked you a question, I did not say you definitely believe it one way or the other. A question based on your remarks which I wanted clarified.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
God, you're thick. That is why I asked you if you did, or not, think that. I asked you a question, I did not say you definitely believe it one way or the other. A question based on your remarks which I wanted clarified.

No, you are now just backpeddling. Pathetic.

Go away.

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
So what you're saying is, you're willing to abide by UN authority, or what the UN says, when it suits you?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Where did I say that? Where did I even closely come to saying that?

Jeessh....

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Try reading your own posts in future, might help.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow, what a cop-out answer. Again I ask you to show me where I said that.

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
No, I really meant it. Stand by what you imply.

You accused me of implying that. And told me to stand by it.,


I did no such thing. Bite the pillow.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, you are now just backpeddling. Pathetic.

Go away.

I am? Please explain. All I have done is ask you questions based on what you write here, show me otherwise, or shut it.

So, to get back on topic. Do you tihnk the US should abide by the UN charter completely, or be able to go it alone when it wants to?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
I am? Please explain.

I already did by showing the quotes. You accused me of implying something I did not.

All I have done is ask you questions based on what you write here, show me otherwise, or shut it.

I did in my last post. But here, let me do it again. It's fun!

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
No, I really meant it. Stand by what you imply.

So, to get back on topic. Do you tihnk the US should abide by the UN charter completely, or be able to go it alone when it wants to?

I think the US should do what is in the best interest of keeping the US safe.

I don't think the UN has the same interest at this time.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I already did by showing the quotes. You accused me of implying something I did not. [/b]

You're meandering again. You always do this. I asked you 2 simple questions based on what you wrote here, yet off you go on your twisty road of trying to divert the conversation way from what is actually being discussed. It's so simple, yet you fail this test every time

I think the US should do what is in the best interest of keeping the US safe.
I don't think the UN has the same interest at this time.

Do you think this should apply to most countries out there too? That they have the 'priviledge' of looking after their own interests, even if it means taking action outside of the UN?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
You're meandering again. You always do this. I asked you 2 simple questions based on what you wrote here, yet off you go on your twisty road of trying to divert the conversation way from what is actually being discussed. It's so simple, yet you fail this test every time

Sub did you or did you not accuse me of implying such a thing?

Yes, yes you did.

You are now back peddling and trying to spin. That may work on some people. But not on me.

Do you think this should apply to most countries out there too? That they have the 'priviledge' of looking after their own interests, even if it means taking action outside of the UN?

They do that now. So Sure.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Sub did you or did you not accuse me of implying such a thing?

Yes, yes you did.

You are now back peddling and trying to spin. That may work on some people. But not on me. [/b]

LOL, I asked you the question, you insane person. I was under the impression of one thg based in your post, hence the QUESTIONS, and why I thought you were implying something!!!

They do that now. So Sure.

Good.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
LOL, I asked you the question, you insane person. I was under the impression of one thg based in your post, hence the QUESTIONS, and why I thought you were implying something!!!

You asked me a question.
I asked you how you got that out of what I said?
You then accused me of implying something I didn't.

End of story.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You asked me a question.
I asked you how you got that out of what I said?
You then accused me of implying something I didn't.

End of story. [/B]

In your dreams. After I asked my question, you said, 'Did I say that?' That, my friend, is very different to implying something, which is what was left with after your post, combined with myquesion. So, it goes back to my question of what did you mean, not what you said, because it's what you said that I wanted clarified. By saying, 'Did I say that?' you could still be proving the question right, while denying that you said it.

Anyway, glad we cleared that up, and good to know that you agree on other nations taking action outside of the UN.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
In your dreams. After I asked my question, you said, 'Did I say that?'

Right. And that was your answer. No, no I did not say that.

Then you went to say I was implying it. Which I did not.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Right. And that was your answer. No, no I did not say that.

Then you went to say I was implying it. Which I did not. [/B]

LOl, even your reply is screwed up in logic. Anyway, ThinkInsane has brought our little exchange to an end.

[Zimphire]

My reply is screwed up in logic...

Now that is a humorous and ironic statement.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My reply is screwed up in logic...

Now that is a humorous and ironic statement.

You wouldn't know irony if it tried to hump you.

[Zimphire]

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[/img]

Kids and staying off school, they'll get up to all sorts of stupidity on the Net.

Anyway, I'll hand the thread back to those who can keep it on-topic.

[Troll]

I have avoided getting into a full on legal debate here because it isn�t that interesting for others, but I think it�s time we got this settled now once and for all particularly since you insist on calling me names.

You present two arguments here. First you say that the use of force was authorised because Iraq broke the ceasefire and secondly you say that the use of force was authorised because Iraq failed to comply with Resolution 1441.

Authority Derives from Iraq�s Breaking of the Ceasefire

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
From the UN perspective, the First Gulf War ended with a conditional ceasefire. Iraq broke those conditions, and the UN Security Council never lifted them (at least, not until this year). Moki is right. A strong argument can be made that Gulf War II was a continuation of Gulf War I.

That argument is weaker than Mexican beer! First off, it is actually the US and UK who first breached the terms of the ceasefire (SCR687) by imposing the no fly zones and by attacking Iraq in January and June 1993, September 1996, December 1998 etc (paras.4 and 33 of the ceasefire resolution). Furthermore, the US, by infiltrating and corrupting UNSCOM and using it to spy on Iraq also breached the terms of the ceasefire. One might argue that these breaches legitimise Iraqi countermeasures such as non-compliance with the weapons inspectorate. As such, Iraq was never in breach of SCR687 at all because that ceasefire no longer had effect.

Second, it's your INTERPRETATION that the ceasefire was conditional. That's not universally accepted. Look at paragraph 33 of the ceasefire. It says that: the ceasefire becomes effective "upon official notification by Iraq � of its acceptance of the provisions" of the resolution. It isn�t made conditional upon actual Iraqi compliance. SCR687 terminated the coalition�s right to use force to eject Iraq from Kuwait. That�s the whole point of the UN Charter replacing the 1907 Hague Regulations on armistice. Force could only legitimately be used once again if the conditions specified in the UN Charter (self-defence or new Security Council authorisation) were complied with. We never had that did we? No UNSC authorisation for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 and no self-defence action.

But let's ignore that. Let's just accept the basis of the argument the UK government made (the US made its argument under pre-emptive defence which is completely unrelated to this point). "In the past when Iraq's military installations were bombed by coalition forces because the UN inspectors were obstructed, the Security Council first considered the facts and determined that Iraq was in "material breach" of the resolution/ceasefire � A formal statement to that effect was then issued by the president of the Security Council." (I took this straight out of a letter to the Financial Times from Mr Anthony Aust, Legal Adviser to the UK Mission to the UN 1988-1991).

He mentions �material breach� because that is the ground for the suspension of a treaty (Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). The difference between the situation in 2002 and the situation all through the 90�s is that unlike on previous occasions, there was NO SECURITY COUNCIL FINDING OF A MATERIAL BREACH OF THE CEASEFIRE in 2002. Consequently, it is impossible to argue that the ceasefire was suspended. In fact Aust is not quite right. The only finding of material breach by Iraq is contained in Resolution 707. Iraq complied with that resolution, so it�s not even correct to say that there was a pre-existing finding of material breach that justified invasion.

Even if the UNSC had found that Iraq had committed a material breach of SCR687 for not complying fully with inspections, this would not be equivalent to suspending the ceasefire agreement. A material breach only "entitles" the parties to suspend a treaty according to the Vienna Convention: it does not require it. So, not only did the UNSC never identify a material breach, it never took the necessary further step of suspending the treaty.

Even if the ceasefire were considered to be a multilateral agreement between the individual signatories (which is not something either the US or the UK has argued), the US and UK could not unilaterally suspend a multilateral treaty. The law of treaties prohibits the unilateral suspension of a multilateral treaty even in cases of a material breach. For a ceasefire agreement to be suspended, the parties (other than the defaulting state) must by "unanimous agreement" suspend the treaty (Art. 60(2)(a) of the Vienna Convention).

But you know what, just to completely destroy the argument you�re supporting, let�s pretend none of that is true and let�s assume the ceasefire was suspended in 2002. The use of military force is still extremely questionable. First off, the proportionality test doesn�t seem met - the invasion of Iraq and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the toppling of the government etc. is not a proportional response to non-compliance with weapons inspections. Secondly, if the ceasefire were suspended then the residual right to use force that would arise would be that provided in the original authorisation � namely the right of Kuwait's self-defence. The authority that would arise would be that specified in SCR678 which "authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area". That authorisation was even further limited by other subsequent resolutions like SCR686 all of which relate to Kuwait. Do you want to show me the authority the US and the UK got from Kuwait to invade Iraq?

Iraq Failed to Comply with Resolution 1441

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It promised "serious consequences" -- which everybody concerned understands is UN Security Council speak for the use of force. Previous resolutions that have resulted in the use of force used the same phrase. So you are wrong on this. There was no legal need for a second resolution. The perceived need was political.

Talk about misrepresenting things! Anyone with a basic knowledge of international instruments knows that 1441 doesn�t authorise the use of force. 1441 required an additional step - the UNSC would have had to have voted the mythical �second resolution� authorising the use of force. It never did so.

In this case, there is no argument that SCR1441 could be a multilateral agreement. First problem you have is that the UNSC NEVER FOUND IRAQ TO BE IN MATERIAL BREACH OF RESOLUTION 1441. Go back and read what the Vienna Convention says before you argue this point further. Second problem you have is that even if the UNSC had found Iraq to be in breach of 1441, 1441 does not authorise the use of force.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
SCR678

THAT is a resolution authorizing force. 1441 was specifically drafted after long negotiations between the US and other states so that it DID NOT authorise force and one that did authorise force failed just days before 1441. That is part of the public record; a public record which you�re ignoring.

The US knew and agreed that 1441 didn�t authorize force. That�s why President Bush said after the passing of 1441: �The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country.�

Want more? The US Permanent Representative to the UN, John Negroponte, said �the resolution contained, no �hidden triggers� and no �automaticity� with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution.�

More? Jack Straw said, �We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about �automaticity� and �hidden triggers� � the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12.�

Russia, France and China issued a joint statement: �Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmament. All Security
Council members share this goal. In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) or the director general of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). It will be then for the Council to take (a) position on the basis of that report.�

Now come on Simey, which of us is misrepresenting things here? Me who, with the backing of all of the members of the UN Security Council says that 1441 wasn�t an authorization for the use of force or you?

[nath]

Originally posted by Troll:
I have avoided getting into a full on legal debate...

great post

[eklipse]

[SubGeniux]

To borrow a phrase from spliffdaddy, and enhanced by myself, Troll's post was an overall, widescale and utter smackdown of Biblcal proportions.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Troll:


[Snip of a long post everybody should read]

Congratulations! That's one of the most articulate responses I have ever seen here on MacNN.

Thanks!


BTW, there is a whole lot of information, legal and otherwise, here

[nath]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
BTW, there is a whole lot of information, legal and otherwise, here

House of Commons paper on Blair impeachment here

Legal opinion on same from Matrix Chambers here

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by nath:
House of Commons paper on Blair impeachment here

Legal opinion on same from Matrix Chambers here

And another one from the same page here

[SimeyTheLimey]

Troll's post is indeed a great brief for the plaintiff, but not a slam dunk from a legal point of view. For example, this interpretation of a UN Security Council resolution as a multilateral treaty under the Vienna Convention. That's novel, to say the very least.

Also, where did you get the idea that the US justified the Iraq war under preemption? That's not the case. I wish it were, but it isn't. The Congressional authorization and the executive statement made to Congress consistent with the War Powers Act and the Congressional Authorization makes perfectly plain that the official justification (or at least, the core one of many) was the violation of the 1991 ceasefire. The authority involked was therefore a revival of the 1991 ultimatum from the UN to the government of Iraq. That's the record. I'm sorry you don't want to believe it.

The rest of your post is simply one hotly disputed set of assertions. I commend you for taking the time to put it together. But I know you know that international law, like all law, is never so black and white. Troll can't be both plaintiff and judge, and since in international law there is no judge, we'll simply have to disagree.

For example, you stated above that the Gulf War was "over." In order to be over, the UN Security Council would have had to declare it to be over, but the UN never did. All those inspection regime resolutions all referred back to the still-valid resolution that prohibited Iraq from having WMD, and which placed the burden on Iraq to prove that they had none. And of course, Iraq was prohibited from developing missiles with a range over 150km, and nobody disputes that Iraq violated that.

Oh, and by the way, this is what 1441 says:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq�s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

So when you said that 1441 never declared Iraq to be in material breach, you were wrong.

I notice also that you haven't again tried to argue that humanitarian law doesn't apply to sub-national entities, when of course it does. Nor have you tried to argue that the ICC has jurisdiction over two non-signatories.

Anyway, it's a wonderful academic argument. But it changes nothing. You aren't going to be indicting anyone.

[DBursey]

Perhaps the wishful thinkers among us might settle to have him declared persona non grata.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For example, this interpretation of a UN Security Council resolution as a multilateral treaty under the Vienna Convention. That's novel, to say the very least.

Excuse me? You're not seriously suggesting that the interpretation of the ceasefire is not guided by the Vienna Convention?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For example, you stated above that the Gulf War was "over." In order to be over, the UN Security Council would have had to declare it to be over, but the UN never did.

SCR687 is a ceasefire agreement! What part of "cease" and "fire" don't you understand? The argument that Desert Storm isn't over is just ridiculous ...

You know, I think you were just trying to divert the argument now that you've lost on your original point. The point is not whether Desert Storm is over or not. Your point was that Iraq broke the ceasefire and therefore the US was entitled to invade. I showed you that even if Iraq did breach the ceasefire (which is not clear), the ceasefire was still in force when the US invaded and therefore your point has no merit. If this really is a question of interpretation as you say it, then argue your interpretation. The thing is you chose to keep the debate at a superficial level ("we said serious consequences if he didn't comply and he didn't comply") and when someone does go into the questions of whether he actually did comply and whether, in any event, lack of compliance authorises invasion, you simply say, "It's a question of interpretation." Only on a superficial level!

Did the UNSC find Iraq to be in breach of 1441? No. Did the UNSC declare the ceasefire suspended? No. Did the UNSC authorise the use of force in Iraq in 2002? No. Was the invasion of Iraq legal under international law? No.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So when you said that 1441 never declared Iraq to be in material breach, you were wrong.

I tried to treat these two points separately but obviously there is overlap. I should have mentioned that in passing 1441, the UNSC found Iraq to have breached 687. I apologise. That doesn't affect anything though. Because, as I noted, a material breach of 687 doesn't suspend the ceasefire or authorise force; it only makes the ceasefire "suspendable". The UNSC would have had to take the additional step of suspending the ceasefire and authorising force. They never did that. If you actually read my post I specifically accepted the possibility that an argument might succeed that Iraq WAS in breach of 687 and still showed that the use of force wasn't authorised.

This really isn't a question of interpretation. You can argue this anyway you like. There quite simply was no UN authority for the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Excuse me? You're not seriously suggesting that the interpretation of the ceasefire is not guided by the Vienna Convention?
SCR687 is a ceasefire agreement! What part of "cease" and "fire" don't you understand? The argument that Desert Storm isn't over is just ridiculous ...

Security Coucil Resolutions aren't treaties at all. A treaty is a negotiated bilateral or multilateral agreement. Security Council Resoltions are self-executing unilateral declarations that, if under Chapter VII, are binding under the UN Charter. UNSCR687 told Iraq what it had to do in order for hostilities to cease. It breached those obligations, as stated in UNSCR 1441.

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq�s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

[Troll]

Btw, I think indicting Bush for war crimes is indeed a challenging prospect but not on the points Moki and Simey raise. The point about whether the UN authorised the US invasion is indeed a slam dunk. They did not. But the difficult point is really on the self-defence question. It is much more difficult to argue against the argument that the US invaded Iraq because it believed that Iraq with its WMD and its links to terrorism was a threat to the security of the United States. The problem you have there is that the threat the United States felt it was under is a subjective question which is made more difficult by the fact that the law on preemptive self-defence and humanitarian intervention as a subset of the self-defence exception is far more difficult than the comparatively clear law relating to events at the UN.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The point is even if there were a "slam dunk" argument (which there isn't), no court in the world has jurisdiction. Neither the US nor Iraq are signatories to the Rome Statute. Even assuming that the Rome Statute's illegal universal jurisdiction over non-parties idea were allowable, the Rome Statute has no definition for agression, which is the only possible indictable offense. And of course, there can't be a definition of agression because it has always been a subjective call used by successful parties to war over their vanquished foe.

Oh, and of course, we'd nuke the f**k out of any country that tried to kidnap our president.

Just so know know.

[DBursey]

Oh, and of course, we'd nuke the f**k out of any county that tried to kidnap our president.

Does that apply to Parishes as well? Descerning Louisiana agitators may inquire.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Does that apply to Parishes as well? Descerning Louisiana agitators may inquire.

Yeah, I saw that and corrected it (I thought) in time.

I probably should have left it as counties. We'll nuke anyone who tries to kidnap the president, but only with little bombs.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Security Coucil Resolutions aren't treaties at all. A treaty is a negotiated bilateral or multilateral agreement. Security Council Resoltions are self-executing unilateral declarations that, if under Chapter VII, are binding under the UN Charter.

Here is the relevant part of SCR687:

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

Resolution 687 is an agreement between Iraq and the United Nations. Arguably the ceasfire provided for in Art. 33 is an agreement "between Iraq, Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait." The Vienna Convention applies to agreements between the UN and States and to agreements between states themselves, so in both cases the Vienna Convention applies. And even if you don't consider it to be an agreement, the UN Charter itself leads to precisely the same consequences. Under the UN Charter, you still need the UNSC to suspend the ceasefire and authorise the use of force.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
UNSCR687 told Iraq what it had to do in order for hostilities to cease. It breached those obligations, as stated in UNSCR 1441.

Here you're just plain wrong. You are effectively arguing that the 1907 rules of armistice were not replaced by the UN Charter.

That's incorrect. What Resolution 687 does it to bring the Gulf War to a permanent end conditional upon Iraq�s acceptance of the terms set out in the resolution NOT conditional upon Iraq's COMPLIANCE with those terms. Iraq accepted the terms and the war ended. This is not controversial or a question of interpretation. From the moment hostilities ceased, there existed a situation of peace, in which the obligation under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter not to use force applied again in full to all of the parties including the US. Wanna recommence hostilities, comply with the UN Charter - i.e. get UNSC authorisation to use force. Lobel and Ratner give an example: "no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command would have the authority to bomb North Korea pursuant to the 1950 authorisation to use force if in 1999 North Korea flagrantly violated the 1953 armistice."

Clearly, it would be contrary to the Charter�s objectives if, once the Security Council authorises the use of force, that authorisation constitutes a permanent mandate to Member States to use force as and how they determine it to be necessary. This is confirmed by the statements of the UNSC at the time of the ceasefire imposed in the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. And to drive the point home further, here's what Professor Thomas Franck had to say at proceedings of the American Society of International Law in 1998:

�[B]y any normal construction drawn from the administrative law of any legal system, what the Security Council has done is occupy the field, in the absence of a direct attack on a member state by Iraq. The Security Council has authorised a combined military operation; has terminated a combined military operation; has established the terms under which various UN agency actions will occur to supervise the cease-fire, to establish the standards with which Iraq must comply; has established the means by which it may be determined whether those standards have been met (and this has been done by a flock of reports by the inspection system); and has engaged in negotiations to secure compliance. After all these actions, to now state that the United Nations has not in fact occupied the field, that there remains under Article 51 or under Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force, which authorisation was terminated in Resolution 687, a collateral total freedom on the part of any UN member to use military force against Iraq at any point that any member considers there to have been a violation of the conditions set forth in Resolution 678, is to make a complete mockery of the entire system.� (ASIL Proceedings, 1998, �Legal Authority for the Possible Use of Force Against Iraq�, at 139.)

The UN never authorised the use of force, Simey. Simple as that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The UN Charter is subject to various interpretations. Of course, you like the most restrictive ones (from the point of view of state action), and naturally quote those espousing them.

That's a problem with international law. The theoretical bears as much relationship to reality as the average law journal article does to actual law. I.e. great statements about what the law should be, precious little contact with what the law is. The latter, of course, in the UN context, is decided by member states. Several of whom take the opposite point of view from you.

And the Korean war never resulted in a peace treaty either. Ask anyone who has spent time on the DMZ. The Koreas are still in a state of war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by James L:
Wow, how amazingly ignorant of you, to completely disrespect a nation you know absoutely nothing about.

Relax. It's only common sense that when an individual or a nation gets along with others (perhaps even putting an EMPHASIS on not making any strong stands or ruffling any feathers) they will escape the scrutiny of those with a chip on their shoulders, spoiling for a fight.

Leadership will be attacked.

Think Jesus.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://home.btconnect.com/eklipse/images/smackdown_awards/gold_award_troll.png

Smackdown!!! awards are only authorized by Spliffdaddy. This represents an unauthorized use of the term and trademark.

It will not be recognized.

Invent your own award.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Smackdown!!! awards are only authorized by Spliffdaddy. This represents an unauthorized use of the term and trademark.

Sue me.

[James L]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Think Jesus.

Weird....

You said "Think Jesus".

My mind immediately thought of "Think Different".

I then pictured Steve Jobs dressed up as Jesus.


... I need sleep!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Troll:
"no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command would have the authority to bomb North Korea pursuant to the 1950 authorisation to use force if in 1999 North Korea flagrantly violated the 1953 armistice."

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the Korean war never resulted in a peace treaty either.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

"TEXT OF THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
July 27, 1953


Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a military armistice in Korea"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

"TEXT OF THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
July 27, 1953


Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a military armistice in Korea"

Armistice =/= peace treaty.

Really, Troll, that's elementary. It's why the 11/11/1918 armistice was followed up in 1919 by the Versailles Treaty. The treaty formally ended the war, the armistice just halted the killing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Armistice =/= peace treaty.

Really, Troll, that's elementary. It's why the 11/11/1918 armistice was followed up in 1919 by the Versailles Treaty. The treaty formally ended the war, the armistice just halted the killing.

Read my quote, then read your quote, then tell me who went from armistice to treaty.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Read my quote, then read your quote, then tell me who went from armistice to treaty.

There is no peace treaty with respect to North Korea and technicaly a state of war does still exist with respect to North Korea. That's just a fact. Don't believe me, go call the UN. It's the reason their flag still flies in the DMZ.

This is O'Level history, Troll.

In the July 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, the border was moved to the military line of demarcation that lies mostly north of the 38th parallel. The armistice established the DMZ on either side of the line as a buffer between the two countries to prevent further military confrontation. However, the two sides remained at odds for decades, and, despite the armistice, a state of war still exists between the two Koreas.

PBS

But the DMZ is still a flashpoint on the divided peninsula, which remains technically in a state of war since the Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

UPI

Officially that war has not yet ended -- no formal peace deal has ever been signed and the war could start again at any moment.

CNN

Technically, the peninsula remains in a state of war restrained by an armistice. The subject of replacing the armistice with a formal peace agreement was mentioned in the 1991 Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation between North Korea and South Korea, but remained unresolved by the end of the century.

Globalsecurity.org

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is no peace treaty with respect to North Korea

I never said there was. And neither did Lobel and Ratner who I quoted. Read it again.

What I said is that no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command (such as JAPAN) would have the authority to bomb North Korea under the terms of the 1953 armistice because they found unilaterally in 1999 that N. Korea wasn't complying.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I never said there was. And neither did Lobel and Ratner who I quoted. Read it again.

What I said is that no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command" (such as JAPAN) would have the authority to bomb North Korea under the terms of the 1953 armistice because they found unilaterally in 1999 that N. Korea wasn't complying.

The troops on the DMZ have shoot orders. And in fact, shooting isn't all that uncommon up there. That Globalsecurity.org link has a nice summary of the instances, including ones where Americans have been killed patrolling the border on behalf of the UN.

Besides, you are doing what you always do in these situations: deny you made the claim you made.

Originally posted by Troll:
Read my quote, then read your quote, then tell me who went from armistice to treaty.

The answer is, nobody in Korea went from armistice to treaty. The armistice still stands, and it has always been pretty scary on that border. Unless you are European, in which case, it is someone else's problem.

The North Korea situation is fairly similar to the situation that existed with respect to Iraq before the invastion. An armisice was signed, the major shooting stopped. But little flare-ups continued for years. The difference, of course, is that the Korean Armistice was never as invasive as the Iraq one. Korea wasn't limited by any Resolution from aquiring WMD, and there was no inspection regime similar to the one in Iraq.

But in any case, this whole reliance on the UN in Iraq was totally subverted by the complete disinterest of France and Russia in holding Iraq to even the Resolutions they agreed to. As long as they remained bought, there wasn't much hope of avoiding an impasse. Which is why, of course, it was correct to bypass the UN once their intransigence was established.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Besides, you are doing what you always do in these situations: deny you made the claim you made.

You are way out of line! The written record is right here for everyone including you to read. If you're so convinced I claimed that there's a peace treaty for Korea, show me where I said that. I have nowhere to hide, so show me. Let me help:

Me (quoting Lobel and Ratner): "no one would seriously claim that member states of the UN command would have the authority to bomb North Korea pursuant to the 1950 authorisation to use force if in 1999 North Korea flagrantly violated the 1953 armistice."

You: "And the Korean war never resulted in a peace treaty either." You accused me of incorrectly saying that the Korean war ended in a treaty. YOU were the one that went from "armistice" to "treaty" not me.

Me: (Quotes my original statement and your reply to show your confusion of "treaty" and "armistice".)

You: "Armistice =/= peace treaty." D-uh! I never said they were the same. I only ever referred to an armistice. Again, YOU confused armistice and treaty not me!

Since then you're just repeating the same bullsh1t. Which is typical of you!! You make up an argument for me and try to score pedantic points to make up for your failure to win the substantive point. Whatever the relative power of France and the United States is and no matter how many nukes you have you will always be wrong that the UNSC ever authorised the 2002 invasion of Iraq.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
no matter how many nukes you have you will always be wrong that the UNSC ever authorised the 2002 invasion of Iraq.

The 2002 invasion? I must have missed that one.

I think we have established by now that I don't care that you disagree that the UN authorized the invasion in April 2003. And of course, I don't really care that you would have preferred that Saddam have been left alone. However, what I reacted to was your assertion that there is no arguable case that the material breach of the 1991 ceasefire was grounds for finding UN authorzation, and especially your incorrect assertion that the US had not in fact made that argument. Both statements are incorrect. The case can be argued, and was argued.

Given that in 60 years of history the Chapter VII of the UN Charter has really only operated properly twice (or perhaps three times, if you count Somalia), I can't get terribly upset about the fact that the justifications used were debatable this time. Most times the UN's name has been invoked, it has been under debatable theories. That's because the UN's mechanisms rely on something totally impractical -- the complete agreement of five major powers (plus some rotating lesser powers), whose interests (including under the table financial ones) often clash, and some of whom, frankly, see their seat as more of a vehicle to influence than as a real mechanism for enforcing peace and security.

Now, we have been through this before. We have managed to agree that a war isn't moral or immoral based on whether or not France, Russia, and China agree with it. Their political interests are not the litmus test for morality. Unless what you are saying is you would have been enthusiastically for the invasion if Chirac in 2003 had behaved like Mitterand in 1991 and agreed to the war, that is. I don't know. Your attachment to arcane rules is such that perhaps you would have supported the war based on nothing more than a vote in New York. But the war iteself, and all its consequences, would have been identical. The horsetrading in New York and Chirac's political calculations cannot be the arbiter of right and wrong.

So we come out differently on this. Big deal. Take this as a lesson not to pin your hopes on antiquated pipe dreams that have little connection to the real world of international politics in 2004. Or 2002.

[shmerek]

Holy derailments Batman!!! (not that it hasn't been instructive)

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
How about we ask the UN weapons chief who says Iraq's WMD were probably destroyed a decade ago too?

Show me his certainty in the weeks before the invasion. No one knew for sure.

btw, wasn't that Kris Kringle's brother-in-law, Hans Blix?

Thanx CD!