My understanding was that the United Nations charter explicitly called for it’s members to renounce war as a means of settling international disputes. Since the US is a member and signatory to the UN charter, would a congressional declaration of war (against, say, Afghanistan) violate that treaty? In the nineteenth century the US signed a law of the sea pact that banned the licensing of privateers, even though the US constitution grants the federal government that power; so there would be a precedence for the US giving up what had been a sovereign right.
Well the United Nations passed a declaration condemning the terrorist action against the United States. This was the first time they have done so. I doubt if this will make much difference (at least for the present) to the nations involved in supporting terrorism.
Your point is good in regards to Afghanistan, but bin Laden’s organization is not a member. The U.N. may condemn war, but it has never stopped any of its members from going to war.
If i’m not terribly mistaken, the Constitution does have an article ( i think art 7) which says (at least de facto)that every provision in the constitution was subject to treaties, which would include our UN connection. In the 50’s it was interpreted by the SC after this fashion, but i think that this interpretation was reversed by same Supreme Court within the last year. Sorry, i don’t have cites. Ergo, it’s the same old story, i.e., it’s legal until it’s not legal.
Also, didn’t the kellogg-briand pact of 1928(???) make war illegal?
Geez…the UN itself has been to war. No one remembers Korea?
It says nothing of the kind. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations specifically gives member nations the right to use force in self-defense:
Teh sEcurity Council has already passed a measure approving force in this instance, so it’s okie-dokie as far as the UN is concerned.