Article 2:
You keep trying to make justifications, and while I think you’re right that there should be exceptions, if you’re going to claim crimes under international law you have to use all of the relevant parts and remain consistent when they hurt your argument. Eagle Claw (the hostage rescue op) was as much a crime according to your cite as the Iraq war is, albeit not in scope.
I’m not try justify anything, I was just trying to educate you. You don’t understand the charter. It only forbids the first act of aggression. It does not forbid any country from defending itself or retaliating. The Carter rescue mission was retaliation, not a first strike.
Ah, now I see it.
There appears to be a bit more than that to what is written though. At what point does the “aggression” switch sides? If I counterattack and charge towards your capitol city, it’s clear that you are no longer the aggressor, therefore do the rules now apply to me?
It’s either a bit more nuanced than you’re making it out to be or I’m reading too much into it.
As soon as it’s clear you’re acting in self-defense, you’re in the clear Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
More explication of the law from [url=]this site:
The development of the law, particularly in the light of more recent state practice, in the 150 years since the Caroline incident suggests that action, even if it involves the use of armed force and the violation of another state’s territory, can be justified as self defence under international law where:
1. an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals);
2. there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack;
3. there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect;
4. the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence…
Iraq did not fit any of ths criteria despite the Bush administration’s attempts to use an “imminent threat” justification for a preemptive strike. They were never able to prove the threat existed and indeed, it did not.