From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 00:50:59 MST
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.
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 00:58:53 MST