From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 08:43:17 MST
John Clark writes:
> A good lawyer could make a moderately strong case that a
> second resolution is required but like most international documents
> ambiguity is deliberately written into the language (it does talk about
> "serious consequences" if Iraq does not disarm) so I think that same
> good lawyer could make a moderately strong case that a second
> resolution is not required.
Yes, and not only good lawyers are "good with words".
Some people might read the above two usages of the phrase
"moderately strong" and conclude that John Clarke thinks two
moderately strong cases are necessarily of equal merit. But "moderately
strong" is not a discrete quantity and discrete quantities of similar
strength
can be clustered under the term "moderately strong" and made to sound
like equalities. A person good at spin might create such a misimpression
of equality and retain their actual opinion undisclosed ;-)
Do you think it is uncertain who is authorised to decide under 1441
that "the final opportunity" is over?
I think it's clear that the Security Council gets to decide. I think
that 1441 is sufficiently clear and that anyone who reads it can make
the determination on this point for themselves.
Interestingly, from all the possible points that the US might have
proffered for re-endorsed it was the clause on "the final opportunity"
that was selected and included in the draft resolution.
For a supposedly redundant Security Council decision why was that
particular clause singled out?
> Actually I think the UN needs that second resolution more than the
> USA does because like it or not one way or another this war will
> happen.
The United Nations is a club of nations that have agreed with each
other and they preserved their obligations in the UN Charter. In the
event of a single nation breaking this covenant unilaterally how does
one weigh up who is harmed more?
>If the UN becomes known as a organization that passes
> resolutions but does not enforce them it will become irrelevant and go
> the way of the old League Of Nations.
Very true.
But, if the UN fails what of the USA's citizens amidst other nations
citizens, and what of the confidence these citizens have in their
governments obligations to them? Where does the Bush
administration stop revoking obligations for expedience as it alone
sees it?
- Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 08:19:41 MST