From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:58:29 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> Brett writes
>
> > The UN Charter is the international agreement that is at issue.
> > Whether is has *actually* been breached I must confess I am
> > not as certain as I was. I am still checking out the arguments
> > that I only recently got access to from the governments of the
> > UK and Australia and so are a bunch of other folk. I do *want*
> > to get to the bottom of it though, it is annoying to me that there
> > is debate about the meaning of a written contract even now.
> > The whole legal uncertainty thing wreaks of bad faith and bad
> > judgement and possibly both.
>
> and in another post
>
> > I think that the purpose of the UN Charter is clear enough
> > to give guidance as to what should be done in the event of
> > uncertainties and also who should get to make the decision.
> > And because I think that in the end each of the permanent
> > security council members (at least) retain the sovereign
> > right (not to breach the Charter) but to void it.
>
> I'm sorry that I have not had time to follow you and
> all your correspondents' arguments on this. But I am
> curious as to how you would compare the legality of
> what the Bush administration is doing with what the
> Clinton administration did. In that case, the U.S.
> went into Serbia, but did not SFAIK bring up the
> issue with the U.N.
>
I did talk a bit about Kosovo, is that what your asking
about?
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:46:17 MST