From: Wei Dai (weidai@weidai.com)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:19:13 MST
> (I provide the above just as background for those interested
> and point out that because the Security Council met "closed-door"
> the two plans are not available for public viewing.
The US/Britain/Spain draft resolution is posted at
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/17937.htm, and it just says:
OP1: Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded
to it in resolution 1441 (2002);
OP2: Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Here's an article which says that the Security Council must explicitly
authorize force against Iraq for an invasion to be legal:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2880
argues that just saying Iraq is in material breach isn't enough. It seems
to me that the proposed U.S. resolution isn't really sufficient either.
What do you think the consequences will be if the U.S. does decide to
breach the U.N. charter and invade Iraq without an explicit authorization
from the Security Council? BTW, isn't the U.S. already in breach of the
U.N. charter by enforcing the no-fly zones, which were never authorized by
the Security Council? What about the 1989 Panama invasion, which was not
authorized by the Security Council either?
I haven't been able to find any amendments to the U.N. charter. Do
any exist? For example has the Security Council chapter been amended to
change one of the permanent members from the Soviet Union to Russia?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:22:03 MST