Nogginhead:
There is such thing as international law and it guides the relations between countries. It is one of the fields in which the UN has made the most headway. And by the way, when the UN charter was ratified by congress it becomes legally binding for the US. Iraq can take the US to court in the ICJ and sue them for damages caused during the war, (of course whether the new Iraqi government would take such a bold move against the US is doubtful) and they would have a very strong case too. The ICJ has made the US pay before, it is not an organ that is easily ignored, I might even state that it is the organ of the UN that is more capable of achieving results.
Actually no, the United States withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction after the Nicaragua case in 1984.
Hehe yeah, they certainly did, so i guess that “multilateralism a-la-carte” is no new US policy.
Imagine a citizen that declares the court hostile, and un-relevant after being fined for a crime…
As a side note: that case was brought to the ICJ only after the US had used it’s veto on the original appeal Nicaragua made to the Security Counsel.
Actually, strict constructionists would conclude that the war is, in fact, legal under the US Constitution. A lot of people seem to believe that the Constitution came with a form declaring war that Congress must fill out for Congress to have “declared war.”
That is not the case. Instead, Congress must simply approve military action by a simple majority vote in both houses, and that is exactly what happened last fall.
Sua
The compulsory jurisdiction clause is not the only way in which the ICJ can have jurisdiction, It is not clear whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the charter of the UN (probably not), there might be a treaty between the US and Iraq of consular rights (standard treaty between nations) that outlaws the illegal use of force, I’m not sure, or Iraq could contend for jurisdiction on customary international law.
And even if Iraq can’t take the US to court, France certainly could, they have considerable oil interest in Iraq, and if they were damaged they could use the Treaty of economic freedoms and consular rights which must exist between France and the US to claim jurisdiction.
AZCowboy:
**
What you’ve stated here seems to imply that 1441 somehow rendered Iraq’s obligations under 678 and 687 moot. I don’t think that’s the case.
Reading the text of 1441, it makes numerous references to 678 and 687, and it sure seems to be referring to them as if they are still in place.
For examples (and this is just two of many):
Note that on the second one listed, it doesn’t say “as was required.” I would take “as required” to be “as is required to this day.”
It would be interesting to hear somebody who knows more about this than all of us confirm whether my assumption is correct. And, while they are at it, what the legal relevance of all that preamble stuff in 1441 may be.
It’s true that compulsory jurisdiction is not the only way that the ICJ can get jurisdiction, but none of the other could conceivably apply here. The United States is not going to voluntarily submit to jurisdiction for the purposes of such a case, and there is no relevant treaty under which the U.S. has agreed to the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over all cases dealing with breaches of obligations under the UN Charter. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations does not deal with the use of force. Violations of customary international law do not trigger ICJ jurisdiction.
Well, Milossarian,
All this talk about 678 and 687 still authorizes force against Iraq is ludicrous.
F. e. the 678 actually only authorizes force to any member state of the UN cooperating with Kuwait, which clearly shows how inaccurate that resolution is to the present day situation.
All parties that signed the 1441 agreed at that time that it did not authorize force. Re-interpretation by one of the parties in retrospect is “childish” if one can use that adjective about the US and UK governments.
Um, Randy, the US and the UK didn’t.
Sua
CHULA:
In the case of Iran vs. the US on the matter of Oil platforms, jurisdiction for and illegal use of force was found in the treaty of economic freedoms and consular rights between the US and Iran, there are many treaties that ban the use of force that have the ICJ as the organ that disputes are to be brought upon, and I’m sure there must be one between France and the US, they are very common.
SuaSponte:
Hm, explain further what you mean, please!
What I’m trying to say is that If say for example oil installations owned by ELF (a French company) in Iraq were damaged, it is possibly for France to sue the US in the ICJ because this is an illegal war from an international law point of view
What I’m trying to say is that If say for example oil installations owned by ELF (a French company) in Iraq were damaged, it is possibly for France to sue the US in the ICJ because this is an illegal war from an international law point of view
Hrmm, turns out the Candians as well.
And The Dutch.
And the Italians.
There are so many hits on Google that I’m having trouble finding stuff from November 2002, but my recollection is that the US position has always been that the “material breach” language authorized the use of force.
Sua
SuaSponte:
Well, the fact that the netherlands and italy sides with the US and the UK since then does not change the point i made.
When the resolution was signed, all the signing parties agreed that another resolution would be needed to sanction the use of force. Even the US. Re-interpretation of an agreement in retrospect by twisting semantics is childish.
A majority of nations do not share the US/UK interpretation of the 1441.
As a side note: the article you quoted on Canada is ambigous at best:
[QUOTE]
“We have always maintained that we need UN approval [to act],” he said, adding that this has always been Canada’s position.
The Prime Minister made the statement in the House of Commons in Question Period, and it was greeted with thunderous applause from Liberal MPs.
“If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate,” Mr. Chrétien said.
**
You keep saying that. My recollection is otherwise.
Cite, please. Provide any statement, resolution, release, etc. from the Bush Administration wherein they agreed that another resolution would be needed to sanction the use of force.
In point of fact, 1441 was a masterpiece of negotiated ambiguity. The language was structured so that the Americans and the UK could argue that it authorized force and the French and the Russians could argue that it didn’t.
If you want to talk about re-interpretation, then look to the French.
-
1441 puts the onus on Iraq to disarm, with the role of the inspectors simply to verify, in clear, simple language. France has “re-interpreted” 1441 to be that the onus is on the inspectors to find WoMD, and that the role of the inspectors is to “contain” Iraq. Where is the support in the language of 1441 for France’s position?
-
For obvious reasons, the French don’t claim that Iraq has taken advantage of its “final opportunity” to comply - Iraq hasn’t. Yet they stated that they would veto a resolution that simply stated that obvious fact. Why would they threaten to veto a factual statement?
Sua
Well SuaSponte,
i refer to the post by erislover earlier in this thread. And i’ll reprint his cite:
Also check out the discussion leading up to his post!
As to your two other points: unfortunately general consensus has been with France. It is up to the security counsel to decide when Iraq is no longer cooperating and when further inspections are pointless.
Sua, 1441 wasn’t always “ambiguous”. I cited an early draft previously in this thread, that specifically included the “all means necessary” language that was previously and consistently used to authorize force.
That language was OMITTED from the final draft. My recollection is that the administration negotiated it out in order to get the unanimous vote that it did.
If you include Negroponte’s comments, and the UK’s UN ambassador comments, then also consider Powell’s comment:
The preponderance of the evidence suggests the decision to authorize force remained with the UNSC.
Thanks, AZ i was not aware of the Powell comment!