28-02-2003 12:57									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Was North Vietnam a party to the conflict in the South? It had its army there.

The Soviets had its airforce engaged in Korea.

	28-02-2003 13:01									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Ted: Nope, I'm just pointing out that Shi's contention that GWI was a defensive war is incorrect. (The Desert Shield early speedbump phase in Saudi was defensive, but Desert Storm/Desert Sabre were classically offensive operations) Even if I was making that argument, it would have no correlation with Britain's declaration of war in 1939, which was part of a bilateral treaty obligation. The cease fire terms themselves, and the terms of the UNSC resolutions, tend to get blurred, either deliberately, or by lack of knowledge. There are two distinct documents - a signed agreement for cessation of hostilities, which is the battlefield document, and UNSC Resolution 678, which was passed four days later. Iraq has substantially complied with the terms of the cessation of hostilities - they returned POW's, bodies, or at least most of them (one can argue without proof that they kept some), property removed from Kuwait, (well, some of it, but it's not like everything can be accounted for), and they stood down and removed what was left of their units from the KTO. Iraq obviously hasn't complied with many items in the series of resolutions starting with 660, but that's addressed in 678 and later resolutions, not in the cessation of hostilities agreed to by the military authorities of the member nations. That being the case, the "violation of the cease fire, so we can go back in and resume hostilities under that aegis" argument fails. The US certainly has the ability to act any time it wants, but the authority to act is not pre-packaged into the actual cease fire, it comes (if at all, which is the debate within the UNSC now) from the UNSC itself, not from the cessation of hostilities agreement (cease fire)

The cease fire agreement was like the 11/11/18 Armistace. Versailles was like SC 660 et seq.

MtG, your argument is beginning to sound a lot like Hitler's argument against Versailles: It was imposed on us. We did not agree to it.

	28-02-2003 14:47									#63
	Re: UN "credibility" at stake.... (International law types...) Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Is there anything in the UN Charter, or any other body of international law related to the UN, or to the agreements member nations make when joining the UN, which gives either the Security Council or the entire General Assembly any "legal" authority to authorize offensive invasion of a recognized state and force regime change, for any reason?

Yes. UN charter, Art 1 section 1: "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace". Art 39: The SC "Shall determine the existance of any threat to the peace..." Also, Art 2 section 7: no intervention in domestic matters, but without prejudice to measures taken for collective security.

This also has to be read in contrast to Art 51, which limits the use of force by states to self defense against an occurring attack. The SC is not limited to giving its blessing to such matters of self defense; the idea back in 1945 was to give it the (exclusive) power to also use preventive measures.

quote: What I want to know is what are the legal limits of the available remedies?

There are two key limits: international ius cogens (eg no prevention through genocide), and a general requirement that measures are necessary and appropriate. "Sovereignty" though, whatever it may mean, cannot be invoked against international law.

quote: Or does the UNSC and/or General Assembly have carte blanche authority to create international law on the fly, by authorizing whatever they want, if they get the votes?

The SC is limited by its mandate, but it is not subject to judicial or other review. This can be interpreted as "the SC can do no wrong", but this is not the intention of the charter. It can be interpreted that breaking the limits means the SC measure is ultra vires and thereby abolutely void, ie a non-act; this would make its acts ever disputed. Fitting the intention of the charter though is an error calculus that only renders obviously and grave breaches of the mandate as a non-act. There are indications for such a standard in other parts of international, esp general treaty law like Art 46 of the respective Vienna Convention.

quote: It seems that the only way for the UN to maintain "credibility" or show "backbone" would be to refuse to issue any resolution it had no legal authority to issue.

I think the SC would be within its mandate by authorizing military action for a regime change in Iraq.

quote: I wonder if part of the preemption strategy of the chickenhawks and Wolfowitz in particular, is to paint the UN into a corner, where it either demonstrates complete impotence (and thus gives a reason to ignore it altogether), or it violates it's own charter, authorizes actions of a type it has no legal authority to authorize, and thus destroys it's own credibility by demonstrating that it will do nothing but slowly and inefficiently kowtow to US policy demands?

I think their strategy is more based on a general contempt of the UN. Either ognore it, or bully it into the desired direction. The total lack of realising the longer term implications of this makes me very skeptical about assuming any grand strategy from these minions.

	28-02-2003 21:15									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Ah, so we're back to cowboy doctrine. Anything designated a threat by the powers that be and a few non-powers that are bought off is a target for any action the powers that be want to take. Just confirms my thinking that the entire thing is a joke.

If we look at the UN from an American constitutional perspective then you are right that it employs a cowboy doctrive.

But if we look at the UN from a parliamentary constitutional perspective then the UN is effective and the events occuring now are unfolding as they should.

	28-02-2003 21:55									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned It appears that the USSR could not have vetoed the SC resolution calling for the defense of SK. The USSR was a party to that conflict by directly aiding NK.

The only reason the Korean War got UN sanction is because the USSR was boycotting the UN at the time. I forget for what reason though.

	28-02-2003 22:03									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Someone mentioned the fact that Taiwan still had China's UNSC seat at the time as the reason, Dino. I think that's right.

-Arrian

	28-02-2003 22:19									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap 1441 only passed unanimously because it was ambigous. That the UN has doen nothing to enforce countless other resolutions, such as 262 (the other famous number of the UN) did not do much to "destroy its credibility". That soemone has the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

1. at the time is was said that It was ambiguous because some states feared that the US might use a minor Iraqi violation, such as a minor error in the Dec 7 declaration, as grounds to claim UN sanction for war without a second res. It was not meant to indicate that in the event of the kind of Iraqi behavior we have seen over the last few months that military action was not implied. Again, Powell has said that everyone knew what it meant. I have not seen France or any other UNSC directly contradict that.

2. You must mean 242, - what 262 about?

3. UNSC 242 indicated that Israel must withdrawl from "territories" (not the territories, or all the territories - jsut "territories) and that Israel (along with all the states in the region should have secure and recognized boundaries) Israel HAS withdrawn from occupied territories (IE Sinai) and does not yet have an agreement with all relevant parties assuring secure and recognized boundaries. Ergo Israel is not in violation of UNSC 242.

Now you might well argue that resolutions on Iraq SHOULD have included obligations on the part of other parties, just as UNSC resolutions relating to Israel have. However they did not. Again, you dont like the pattern of UNSC resolutions, but the fact is that the resolutions pertaining to Iraq are different from those pertaining to Israel.

	28-02-2003 22:23									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The only reason the Korean War got UN sanction is because the USSR was boycotting the UN at the time. I forget for what reason though.

DinoDoc, They were boycotting because the ROC had China's seat in the UN.

But it is still interesting that they did not show up for this vote. I think that their own direct involvment would have been put on the table for discussion. They were trying to avoid this by marking their planes with NK insignia.

	28-02-2003 22:27									#69
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap So the issue comes down to whether Iraq, by its actions, trully represents a danger for the maintanence of international security as Germany and Japan used to. It is in that simple point that we all disagree.

Do you really mean to state that Germany represented an imminent danger to international security in Feburary 1945???? With its troops pushed out of France, the low coutnries, and even Poland, the country whose territorial integrity was original casus belli? with its economy in ruins, its military in retreat and collapse, and a global coaltion arrayed against it?? Surely the allie could, had they chose, have ,a t that point, contained Germany, deterred it from any future adventures, and prevented it from building weapons of mass destruction ( the v -weapon facilities were destroyed from the air, and the German nuclear program was in ruins)

The allies chose to implement occupation and regime change for their own strategic reasons, not out of any imminent threat from Germany. And they were legally entitled to, since Germany by initiating blatant aggression and starting the war, had forfeited some of its sovereign rights. The UN was founded by those allied powers, during the very midst of that conflict, and it is unreasonable to interpret the charter in any way inconsistent with this principle.

	28-02-2003 23:42									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Again, you dont like the pattern of UNSC resolutions, but the fact is that the resolutions pertaining to Iraq are different from those pertaining to Israel.

Indeed. The one pertaining to Iraq were passed under Chapter 7, while the one with regards to Israel was not.