It’s an assumption which I declared as such. You have one too.
I assume that it’s self-evident that if A and B agree to stop fighting on condition that B stop doing X, B going back and doing X means the deal is void. I allow that I could be wrong on this as a legal matter; but I regard an assertion to the contrary as so exceptional that I’d want a cite before I believed it.
You seem to assume that such an agreement would still bind A even if B was in flagrant violation. That seems crazy to me, but as IANAL, I won’t say it’s impossible. You request a cite denying this principle. I request a cite affirming it.
I do not recall blue helmets in 1991. The UN gave a thumbs up after the US and other nations said they would aid Kuwait, and the coalition voluntarily brought in the UN to mediate the ceasefire, and to allow the UN to monitor compliance.
I see nothing in the resolutions that spells out what will or will not happen if Iraq violates the terms; thus we are both thrown back on our assumptions; mine that violations void the cease-fire, yours that they do not.
IMO, for the UN to on the one hand declare Iraq in material breach, and on the other deny the US the right to do anything about it, is equivalent to a football referee holding up a red card but then saying the offending player doesn’t have to leave the pitch. Or more aptly, a civil judge ruling that I’m liable for something, but then denying you the right to collect them from me. To me, the one ought to follow self-evidently from the other, and the fact that they don’t suggests a crooked or incompetent judge.
Obviously, you see things differently.
Heartily agreed. As I said before, I do not see further discussion as being fruitful. Provided you credit me with debating fairly and in good faith, I am entirely willing to let you have the last word.
As a factual answer to your question, the terms and conditions of the cease-fire would be moot, because Article 51 of the U.N. Charter allows any country to take action to defend itself against an armed attack.
In case you’re interested in the broader principles involved, check out this article by two distinguished authorities on international law. See the section entitled “The Effect of the UN Charter,” about 40% of the way down.
The short of it is that the Hague Convention of 1907 did, indeed, hold that cease-fires dissolved upon a violation, consonant with your view. However, that changed when the UN Charter was ratified, because the Charter, which is binding as international law and as the supreme law of the land as provided by the US Constitution, is that the principle of restraint from the use of force governs states’ actions until the Security Council authorizes force or a state is attacked.
These were United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreements not treaties between the US and Iraq. And as such, they are the UN’s problem. The US ratified no such treaty with Iraq.
The UNSC has the right to decide to resume hostilities. It did not decide to do so.
First, I said that I couldn’t find the language in the ceasefire agreements that establishes an automatic resumption of hostilities.
Second, I said that the US is neither A nor B.
Third, I don’t see where I made a judgement about the nature of unspecified ceasefire agreements generally.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.
Neither you nor I can find the language in the agreements that establishes an automatic resumption of hostilities.
I’ve asked, “Where is such language?” I shouldn’t’ve. It’s a hijack of a hijack. Pretty much beside the point because the ceasefire is between the UNSC and Iraq, not the US and Iraq.
This isn’t an assumption of mine.
You’ve asserted that Iraq’s violation of the ceasefire negates the ceasefire agreements. I say that even if the ceasefire agreements have been negated, there’s still not authorization for the US to initiate hostilities toward Iraq on behalf of the UNSC.
Previously, the US acted under the authority of the UNSC resolutions, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, and used all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 etc. There was a ceasefire established. Nowhere in the ceasfire is there authorization for the US to initiate further hostilities toward Iraq.
The UNSC has the right to decide to resume hostilities. It did not decide to do so.
Iraq was the UNSC’s problem.
The analogy game only works with a sympathetic audience. It’s almost always a very nearly pointless game.
Immediately, off the top of my head, I can think of three entities fit to ajudicate and render relevant and meaningful judgements on at least some, if not all, aspects of the issue: The US Supreme Court, as the alleged perpetrators were Americans and the laws alleged to be violated were US laws; the US Senate through their power to try impeachments; and the highest sovereign body in the US, the US electorate.
I know you’re anxious to let this drop, so let me just correct this misperception, and I’ll let it drop, too.
The International Court of Justice is the judicial body of the UN. (This is not the International Criminal Court which came into being about two years ago that the US has refused to join – the ICJ was established at the same time as the UN.) The US has once been brought before the ICJ for violoations of the laws of war: in 1986 Nicaragua sued the US for illegally mining the harbor of Managua. Nicaragua won.
Sigh. I weep bitter tears knowing this thread won’t go away. SimonX, I feel courtesy-bound to respond until you give me leave to go.
The electorate does not interpret laws. If the Congress wanted to impeach Bush, or if someone wanted to bring suit in a federal court, yes, they could do so, and if they won it would vindicate your point. No one has done so. I wonder why?
Now, say whatever you want to say, but for the love of Og, please let’s end this thing, OK?
