From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 09:20:20 MST
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Wei Dai wrote:
> 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
I do not believe that "legal" is the proper word. The members of the
U.N. all have independent "legal" systems (which clearly do not agree
with one another). I think the correct terms might be either "approved"
or "sanctioned".
> 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?
Does the U.N. charter prohibit countries from acting in their national
interests? [I don't think it does.] If indeed it does -- then we have
probably had dozens of countries in "breach" over the last 50 years.
> 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?
Very interesting point. If it hasn't been amended, then one has to
presume that any votes (vetos, etc.) by Russia are null and void.
I believe that there was a lot of legislation within Russia in the
early '90s to "assume" all obligations (rights?) that were held
by the S.U. Now whether such legislation is recognized by
everyone else is an interesting question indeed.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 09:22:50 MST