From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 11:46:41 MST
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Subject: (> Iraq ) Law Scholars appeal to UN Secretary General
>
> Hi Extropes,
>
> I've been keeping an eye open for a reasonably good description
> of the legal ramifications of any "unilateral" decision to take military
> action against Iraq. And the following (below) couched in terms of
> a PR and open letter to Kofi Annan seems to fit the bill.
I'm surprised this letter did not mention the US/UK talk of a "moral
majority" on the Security Council justifying, at least partly, a decision
that would (have) be(en) vetoed by the Security Council. This is
a major new precedent that sidesteps the intentions of the UN Charter.
The US Bush administration talk of the UN (and even NATO) being
"irrelevant" is, I think, also a major new precedent for a superpower
member of the Security Council, especially in its context of justifying a
war of aggression.
All of this seems a dark portent of things to come.
If a "Uniting for Peace" resolution were adopted by the General Assembly
threatening military retaliation or economic sanctions against the United
States, would the world's largest military powers break into a new set of
alliances in order to enforce it?
Both previous World Wars were immediately preceded by the formation of
competing worldwide military alliances. And what maneuvers would then be
made by the key global capitalist players to prevent or facilitate war or
form new transnational monopolies?
Just questions I have been asking myself, without an answer . . .
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 11:53:45 MST