Wars are only legal or illegal post hoc. The difference between the Father of a Country and an arch-traitor is who won the revolt.
[ul]
[sup]Despite Erislover’s disclaimer I feel I must answer after being so blantantly picked on.[/sup][/ul]
I cannot find a copy of article #687, however here is a discussion of the terms:
So, all of this is a bunch of diplomatic mumbo jumbo and it is basically what Bush was talking about in his address to the UN. If the UN is not willing to use force, what is the point of passing a resolution like article 687 or 1441? Is the UN anything more than a debating society? Hail Ants wasn’t so far off base.
What I think stinks is that Chirac admitted that it was the deployment of U.S. troops that forced Saddam to allow the inspectors into Iraq. He then stated that the inspections should continue for an undefined period.***** Everyone knows that the weather is changing and a delay of another month would mean that our troops would have to stay in place over the summer and fall or come home. The idea of the troops coming home would mean Saddam kicking the inspectors out. Therefore, Chirac was asking for us to keep our troops in place for at least another 8 months. It almost appears to me that Chirac forced our hand.
There was an interview yesterday featuring a member of the French Parliment. He would not admit that the U.S. had the votes to pass the latest resolution. He did however say that France made discussion of the resolution meaningless by saying it would veto any resolution. He thought this was a mistake.
Despite the notable holdouts there is a large number of countries now joining our side. Even France says it will join if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons, which is worth a chuckle or two.
*****source=Christiane Amanpour’s interview with Chirac on CNN this past Monday.
Some foreign governments have made statements of support, but given that popular opinion in most of these states is against the war I don’t know how long we can count on them being on “our side”.
As long as the war is short and sweet, more and more support will come our way. If it doesn’t go our way then Bush doesn’t stand a chance in hell in 2004.
How do you figure? Here’s the text of the relevant part of 678:
(bolding mine)
Basically, this resolution states that Iraq must fully comply with all resolutions, including future resolutions related to peace and security, and gives explicit authorization to member nations to enforce this resolution and all subsequent resolutions.
There was never a time at which the U.N. ‘closed the book’ on Iraq. They were never in compliance with any of these resolutions, and the whole issue was still an open matter.
For example, maintenance of the no-fly zones was still an ongoing operation up until today.
Sam, the main problem your logic that 1441 superceeds all previous resolutions on Iraq regarding disarmament. And 1441 was definitely understood NOT to authorize an invasion by most of it’s signatories. (see previous posts on this subject)
The fact that you have to reach back to an out of date resolution pretty much sums up the depths of your desperation to carry water for W.
But of course, it matters not at all what W’s partisans say, It’s what the majority of world opinion thinks about the legality of this war that matters. If the UN should come right out and say that this war was either legal, or illegal than that would settle the matter. In the absence of this, they will trust the judgement of people who they consider trustworthy, and that ain’t you or Blair. And that especially aint Bush.
Oh, and incidently. Blair’s lawyers did not say that the war is legal. What they said was that if he and Bush went back to the SC for a vote and LOST then their war would be unquestionably illegal. Hence Bush’s decision to break his promise to have everyone show their cards.
If Bush were the honorably man you seem to believe he is, he would have gone back to the UN for a vote anyway.
The draft of resolution 1441 circulated by the US and the UK back in early October contained this gem:
There is that magic phrase! But it didn’t seem to make the final edit.
Typo?
Begging your pardon, Sam, but if the ‘subsequent resolutions’ of paragraph 1 are those into the indefinite future, and not just those in between 660 and 678 (several of which applied to Iraq, btw), then how could Saddam implement them by 1/15/91 in order to forestall Desert Storm?
My reading is that the ‘subsequent resolutions’ referred to were those already in existence.
RT, subsequent is defined as
How could they enforce subsequent resolutions if they hadn’t been passed yet?
There are lots of reasons why this war maybe shouldn’t have happened, but there’s no need to use absurd rationalization to do it.
Uh, Airman, the quote in question is from 678 approved November 29, 1990, and phrase is “resolution 660 … and all subsequent relevant resolutions”. SCR 660 was approved on August 2, 1990.
The “subsequent resolutions” phrase referenced SCRs 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 671, 674, 676, and 677, all occuring between the two [subsequent to 660], and all were dealing with Iraq.
Clearly, it wasn’t a reference to resolutions in perpetuity.
Doesn’t matter anyway, SCR 687 was a formal ceasefire, which removed any authorization of force from all previous SCR.
OK, let’s try another approach: the full text of 678:
I’d say the “Recalling and reaffirming” paragraph, where it provides a comprehensive list of ‘subsequent relevant resolutions,’ makes it crystal clear which resolutions they meant in the resolution proper.
FWIW, I see no authority in 678 that could possibly apply forward to now. Iraq has been out of Kuwait for a dozen years, fulfilling 660 and subsequent resolutions; international peace and security were restored by UN forces at that time, and not only hasn’t Iraq tried to invade its neighbors since, but its military has never regained its 1991 level of strength.
Resolution 686 is worth a quick mention here.
Part of its preamble reads:
and then launches into a list of requirements that, AFAIK, have not been at issue since the period immediately following Gulf War I.
IOW, under the terms of relevant resolutions in the 660-686 range, Iraq is off the hook.
Resolution 687 is far too long to quote here in its entirety. It’s the one from the Gulf War I era that resolves that Iraq shall destroy its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and abandon attempts to make more of the same.
However, it has the same bit in its preamble about Iraq’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence,” as well as noting “the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait…to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686.”
This seems to undermine the notion that Resolution 687 authorizes violations of Iraq’s territorial sovereignty by any of the nations coming to Kuwait’s aid in 1991 at any time during an indefinitely long period afterward in order to make Saddam comply with 687, but would instead leave the door open (as always) to passage of subsequent resolutions to compel compliance if deemed necessary.
Resolution 1441 was such a resolution. And it, of course, threatens “serious consequences” should Saddam drag his feet, rather than threatening outright war. If it had done the latter, it might or might not have passed; it might or might not have been vetoed. It certainly wouldn’t have won anything approaching unanimous approval from the Security Council.
Whether this all means a hill of beans is anyone’s guess. But as a fig leaf of legal right for the U.S. to be doing what it’s doing, I find these resolutions easily insufficient.
My interest in this, such as it is, is to make the point that Bush isn’t really relying on legalities, but instead on the “Bush Doctrine” which he asserted Monday night, claiming the right to wage pre-emptive war to forestall potential threats that are far from imminent.
The U.S. Constitution seems to regard international law as real, and the “supreme law of the land” no less. (See Article VI.)
IAAIL (or will be very soon), and I don’t think there’s any question among international lawyers that this war violates the UN Charter and customary international law. I’ve explained why in earlier threads - sorry I’m not going to go over the argument again.
Sorry if this seems like a hijack.
Reading the title of the thread, I thought it was going to be about whether the constitutional requirements for war had been met. Namely, a declaration of war by the Congress.
I don’t think there’s any reason to care about whether the action is legal under the UN. We do what we see as right regardless of external opinion. (Of course, our ability to conduct diplomacy may be adversely affected, but that’s our business too.)
But we do try to be internally reponsible to our own laws, and personally, I feel that one of the most dangerous usurpations of authority by the exceutive branch has been to start de facto wars without first obtaining a declaration of war from congress. There is not one, in this case. So strict constructionists ought to feel the current action in Iraq, being a de facto war, is illegal.
From Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…
Do we have a treaty that says we’ll obey international law? I would be surprised if an international lawyer thought that the existence of ‘customary international law’ was equivalent to a treaty on our part to obey it.
The UN Charter is a treaty to which the US is a signatory.
Yes, I know that. But reasonable people disgree about whether the war violates the UN charter/SC resolutions.
That’s why I’m interested in ‘customary international law’.
Then I don’t get your point. Certainly reasonable people may disagree about whether the war violates ‘customary international law’.
In fact, I know of few law systems that we might consider valid that do not include the concept of an adverserial system, so simply saying ‘reasonable people may disagree’ doesn’t get us anywhere.
The reasonable disagreement criterion, in my totally uninformed opinion, is about disputations of fact, not adversarial arguments before a judge or jury. At least, that’s what I’m talking about here.
The question/my point is, are we arguably violating laws we have committed to obey?
There is reasonable disagreement on the UN charter, etc. (I.e., it’s not a factual debate, but about interpreting the laws/resolutions.)
I posit that we have no legal (treaty-bound) committment to ‘customary international law’, so it’s irrelevant whether we violate it or not.
I also argue that we are violating the US Constitution.
Despite the quote from Ruth Wedgwood, I actually don’t think there’s any real debate among legal scholars about whether the attack violates the UN Charter. We don’t really need to talk about customary international law because it’s reflected in the Charter, but anyway, the Supreme Court held in The Paquete Habana 175 U.S. 677 (1900) that customary international law is part of U.S. law. Here’s the relevant passage:
Well, it is up to congress to ask the Supreme Court to rule that the executive branch has overstepped it’s constitutional role. But, given that congress passed a bill authorizing the president to do whatever he wants with Iraq, we’re not going to see this happen. A constitutional challenge to the president’s authority to prosecute the war would have to come from congress, they are the one’s whose perogatives might be infringed.
Since they told Bush to go ahead anyway, they are pretty much out of luck. Kind of funny that they voted to give him this power thinking that the war would be incredibly popular, even the democrats. If they had waited for antiwar sentiment to grow they might have voted for what they really think. Ah well, live by the focus group die by the focus group.