Please refer to the UN resolutions. AFAIK no-fly zones weren’t part of them.
Please refer to the UN resolutions. AFAIK no-fly zones weren’t part of them.[/quote]
Are UN resolutions the only source of law?
What does the UN Charter and or other UN declarations have to say about the obligation to protect human rights? Are the UN Charter and or other declarations a source of international law in your opinion?
I didn’t say it’s the only one but in the context of this discussion the UN resolutions prevail and are the only ones to be of interest for the situation that we are discussing.
You could stretch protection of human rights to an extend that you could “justify” nuking another country, so I am not going there.
Show us the resolution that called for establishing the no-fly zones and allowed violating the airspace of a souvereign country or you have to admit they were illegal. In which case you (pl.) can also stop whining that Iraq shot at the US/UK planes.
Why? It seems obvious to me that the UN cease fire agreement and the 17 subsequent UNSC resolutions calling for Iraq to IMMEDIATELY comply with the demands of the cease fire agreement and the resolutions did not mean much to you when the US and coalition forces decided to enforce those… why do you now place such ultimate authority in those same resolutions?
No need to. We’ve already been there.
No, that isn’t correct. We do not need to show you a UN resolution to prove legality. You have already admitted above that the UN resolutions are NOT the ONLY source of law. Your assertion that in the context of the discussion the UN resolutions prevail is an odd one, to say the least.
Rascal is wrong.
See this:
[quote=“UNITED NATIONS BACKGROUND NOTE”]
Universal Human Rights and International Law
Largely through the ongoing work of the United Nations, the universality of human rights has been clearly established and recognized in international law. Human rights are emphasized among the purposes of the United Nations as proclaimed in its Charter, which states that human rights are “for all without distinction”. Human rights are the natural-born rights for every human being, universally. They are not privileges.
The Charter further commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms”. As the cornerstone of the International Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms consensus on a universal standard of human rights. In the recent issue of A Global Agenda, Charles Norchi points out that the Universal Declaration “represents a broader consensus on human dignity than does any single culture or tradition”.
Universal human rights are further established by the two international covenants on human rights (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and the other international standard-setting instruments which address numerous concerns, including genocide, slavery, torture, racial discrimination, discrimination against women, rights of the child, minorities and religious tolerance.
These achievements in human rights standard-setting span nearly five decades of work by the United Nations General Assembly and other parts of the United Nations system. As an assembly of nearly every State in the international community, the General Assembly is a uniquely representative body authorized to address and advance the protection and promotion of human rights. As such, it serves as an excellent indicator of international consensus on human rights.
This consensus is embodied in the language of the Universal Declaration itself. The universal nature of human rights is literally written into the title of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Preamble proclaims the Declaration as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”.
This statement is echoed most recently in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which repeats the same language to reaffirm the status of the Universal Declaration as a “common standard” for everyone. Adopted in June 1993 by the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in Austria, the Vienna Declaration continues to reinforce the universality of human rights, stating, “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated”. This means that political, civil, cultural, economic and social human rights are to be seen in their entirety. One cannot pick and choose which rights to promote and protect. They are all of equal value and apply to everyone.
As if to settle the matter once and for all, the Vienna Declaration states in its first paragraph that “the universal nature” of all human rights and fundamental freedoms is “beyond question”. The unquestionable universality of human rights is presented in the context of the reaffirmation of the obligation of States to promote and protect human rights.
The legal obligation is reaffirmed for all States to promote “universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all”. It is clearly stated that the obligation of States is to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights. Not selective, not relative, but universal respect, observance and protection.
[color=red]Furthermore, the obligation is established for all States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments of human rights and international law. No State is exempt from this obligation. All Member States of the United Nations have a legal obligation to promote and protect human rights, regardless of particular cultural perspectives. Universal human rights protection and promotion are asserted in the Vienna Declaration as the “first responsibility” of all Governments[/color].
[/quote]
The no fly zones were established and enforced in order to protect the human rights of certain groups of peoples living in Iraq. Not only were the no-fly zones not illegal… they were required as obligatory under international law. Once again we see how Germany and other nations shamefully ignored their legal obligation.
You know very well that such enforcement had to be approved by the UNSC, but if you want to provide another example of the US acting illgeally - suit yourself.
In any case it’s irrelevant - topic are the no-fly zones and if those were illegal or not. So do you have any facts to provide that they weren’t or don’t you?
Well, then show us which specific law applies and allowed the US/UK to violate the airspace of a souvereign country.
See the above. 
See the above. [/quote]
Didn’t read the header? It’s a ‘background note’, not a raticiation of the law itself and surely any such protection must not conflict with other parts of internation law, such as violating foreign territory (or airspace) etc.
Nice try. 
Rascal:
This excessive focus on the Law reminds me very much of all the Germans put on trial at Nuremberg. They were all “following orders” or it was “the law” and so they had “no choice.” This excessively legalistic approach is pointless. Justice and serving justice should be the highest objectives of any moral society not obeying laws which can and often are flawed or limited in their ability to deal with new problems that are not specifically circumscribed by said law(s). That is why a core tenant of many moral traditions is that laws are no longer to be followed or respected if and when they no longer serve the purpose of justice. I challenge you to find a moral tradition where this is not the case.
Again, I find your defense of the UN most amusing since the UN has been one of the biggest breakers of all sorts of laws in human history. This Oil for Food Scandal is now officially the largest ever case of fraud and corruption in world history. You have nations such as Zimbabwe and Libya voted onto the human rights commission, you have Iraq (under Saddam) almost voted onto the disarmament commission, you have numerous examples of the UN looking the other way when laws are broken to suit its own corrupt or venal interests and yet it is always the UN the UN the UN with you.
What is it about the UN that holds such allure for you? What is it about the UN that you think is so fine that it should trump all other interests? OR what is it about the US that you are so afraid of that you feel that it should not have the sovereign authority to act as all other nations do including yours and France? I would be very curious to hear if you would like to put Germany and France’s economic and financial policies under the authority of the UN. Clearly, neither of your nations can be trusted to obey international treaties and laws to which both have signed on to. I speak specifically of the Euro Financial Stabilization Pact. Shall we put your economic and financial policies under the UN spotlight with the UN having the ultimate authority to determine German and French interest rates, monetary policies? budget deficits? If not, why not? What’s the difference? Shall we also subject Germany’s constitution to the edicts of the UN? If the UN determines that Germany must supply peace-keeping troops and money equivalent to its economic weight in the world, will Germany then send say 30,000 troops to Sudan if the UN commands it? Will you send $5 billion to Rwanda if the UN commands it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Somehow, I very much doubt it. ONLY the US is to be subject to the diktats of the UN while nations like France and Germany do whatever the hell they want right? I don’t think so.
See the above. [/quote]
Didn’t read the header? It’s a ‘background note’, not a raticiation of the law itself and surely any such protection must not conflict with other parts of internation law, such as violating foreign territory (or airspace) etc.
Nice try. :p[/quote]
It was better than a “nice try”. The article was published by the UN and it cites the sources of international law that you requested.
I don’t see it mentioning that it is allowed to violate foreign territory / airspace by any member, i.e. it does not state that violating other parts of international law is acceptable to protect those human rights.
So your protection of human rights argument is way to general (as indicated with the nuke example) and one must wonder why there is a UNSC, UN resolutions etc. if one could just print said article and use it as a “free pass” to mess around in other countries. Did you ever consider that?
Anyhow, show me a the part of the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq that call for no-fly zones or I consider this issue settled.
[quote]I don’t see it mentioning that it is allowed to violate foreign territory / airspace by any member, i.e. it does not state that violating other parts of international law is acceptable to protect those human rights.
So your protection of human rights argument is way to general (as indicated with the nuke example) and one must wonder why there is a UNSC, UN resolutions etc. if one could just print said article and use it as a “free pass” to mess around in other countries. Did you ever consider that? [/quote]
Shall I repost the remarks by Kofi Annan the general secretary of the UN where he said in 1999 that sometimes member nations would have to enforce UN resolutions. This in reference to the NATO action in Kosovo. There had been no authorization of any such action given that China and Russia both vetoed it. So, what exactly is Kofi Annan’s role within the organization and what shall we make of his remarks? Is he also an international outlaw or merely a pistol-brandishing cowboy thug? hmmm?
Also, when can we look forward to Germany and France submitting their foreign policies and economic policies to UN diktats. Surely for someone as fond of the UN as you are, you would have no hesitation in submitting Germany’s policies on the Euro Stablization Pact to UN authority since clearly Germany is not capable of obeying its international treaty obligations. You would also no doubt subject Germany to undeniable requests for troops and monies should the UN request the same for international peacekeeping operations. Right?
I doubt very much that Rascal will answer this. Doing so would put him on record and that is something he very much would like to avoid in the case of the above. I know the drill. hahah
What do you say about the findings then of the UN commission on Kosovo Rascal? See below an excerpt…
[quote]The overall narratives of the international response are inherently inconclusive, and hence without clear “lessons” beyond the prudential observations in favor of early engagement and greater attentiveness to nonviolent options. Certain key conclusions are worth emphasizing.
Multiple and divergent agendas and expectations and mixed signals from the international community impeded effective diplomacy,
The international community’s experience with Milosevic as not amenable to usual negotiations created a dilemma. (What if we substituted Saddam Hussein here?)
The only language of diplomacy believed open to negotiators was that of coercion and threat. This lead to legal and diplomatic problems - such threat diplomacy violates the Charter and is hard to reconcile with peaceful settlement. The credibility of the threat must, in the final analysis, be upheld by the actual use of force.
It is impossible to conclude, however, despite these weaknesses, that a diplomatic solution could have ended the internal struggle over the future of Kosovo. The minimal goals of the Kosovar Albanians and of Belgrade were irreconcilable. (What if we substituted UN and US or UK and Saddam’s Iraq instead here?)
Russia’s contribution to the process was ambiguous. Its particular relationship with Serbia enabled crucial diplomatic steps, but its rigid commitment to veto any enforcement action was the major factor forcing NATO into an action without mandate.
THE NATO AIR CAMPAIGN
The Commission concludes that the NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate. It was illegal because it did not receive prior approval from the United Nations Security Council. However, the Commission considers that the intervention was justified because all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and because the intervention had the effect of liberating the majority population of Kosovo from a long period of oppression under Serbian rule. [/quote]
Again, what if we were to substitute Iraq for liberating the majority population after all diplomatic venues had been exhausted? You are clearly cherry-picking Rascal. There is absolutely NO difference between what happened in Kosovo with what followed in Iraq. There is a legal precedence set for such action by the remarks of the Commission on Kosovo. While the action was not “legal” in the commission’s eyes, it was “legitimate.” They have supplied the reasons why so why is not the same case applicable to Iraq. YOU tell me.
Maybe you should quote Kofi Annan on the topic of invading Iraq and the “enforcing” of UN resolutions by the US without UNSC approval - just so that we stay closer to the topic. Well, let me pre-empt you:
You can verify the quote here and also look at the statement that suggest further resolutions and approval by the UNSC would have been necessary.
Funny that certain posters here keep on rejecting or refusing to accept international law (in fact some denying it’s existance even), call the UN irrelevant, support ignoring UN resolutions etc. but then keep on frequently citing exactly those as part of their arguments.
I assume that you did not read the comments cited above on the conclusion of the Kosovo Commission? Please read them and then respond.
The only reason that I use UN comments is to show you that there is often no agreement within the UN itself on these things. Also, you are the one that is so in love with the UN. Then explain why you do not want to submit your country’s economic and political policies to the UN. Answer the question. Stop evading this. You know answering will commit you to something that you demand only of the US but would not be willing to accept for your own “country.” Right? Isn’t that really the case? Huh? I can’t hear you. haha
Above is the official findings of the UN commission on Kosovo. It says the NATO action was illegal because it did not have UN approval but LEGITIMATE and JUSTIFIED. Please explain why, given the commission’s reasons why it is legitimate AND justified, that a similar action in Iraq would not be.
Thank you for your “compliance.”
You’re joking, right?
Look, you asked for cites to international law regarding the protection of human rights. I gave you those.
Now you ask for international law that allows the violation of souvereign territory in order to carry out the obligation to protect human rights. OK:
Then there is this:
[quote=“UNSC Resolution 688”]The Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,
Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,
Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),
Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,
Bearing in mind the Secretary-General’s report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),
-
Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
-
Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;
-
Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;
-
Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;
-
Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;
-
Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;
-
Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[/quote]
Your facts are wrong. I asked for the law(s) that ‘allowed the US/UK to violate the airspace of a souvereign country’. (and yep, that’s a quote)
And you have still failed to explain why the protection of human rights would prevail over other (international) laws.
[quote]Now you ask for international law that allows the violation of souvereign territory in order to carry out the obligation to protect human rights. OK:
Please explain how no-fly zones relate to self-defense, what armed attack you relate this to and which member of the UN was being attacked.
Ah Nothing like the Sound of Silence from Rascal:
Nothing to say about the findings of the UN commission on Kosovo which found the action “illegal” but “legitimate and justified.” Why would not the same dangerous precedent be set for Iraq? You were after all the one who was most eager to talk about precedents were you not? haha
[quote=“Rascal”]Your facts are wrong. I asked for the law(s) that ‘allowed the US/UK to violate the airspace of a souvereign country’. (and yep, that’s a quote)
And you have still failed to explain why the protection of human rights would prevail over other (international) laws.[/quote]
Sigh.
The UN Charter itself illustrates the development and evolution of new international law regarding human rights. The new law alters the traditional concept of sovereignty that you seem to think is so sacred. The UN Charter at the Preamble and Article 1(3) stipulates that promoting and encouraging respect for human rights is one of the basic purposes of the United Nations, and thus indicates that human rights are now a matter of international concern and not merely an issue to be decided on within the domestic jurisdiction of each respective state.
This “newer” concept of an international law of human rights changes the nature of state sovereignty with the acknowledgment and declaration that the people within a particular sovereign state possess rights according to international law that the government of the sovereign state is obliged to respect.
This evolution in concept and in law represents a significant change from the traditional “state-centric” perspective of international law to which you seem to want to hang on to in the context of this particular issue.
However, despite your unwillingness to let go of old ideas and to acknowledge that the law has indeed changed, international human rights treaties have already created international law and legal obligations regarding human rights.
You can argue all you want for allowing genocide and mass murder and repression to continue. But it is clear that under current international law, all states have an obligation to respect human rights of all peoples and all states have a legal obligation to protect the human rights of all peoples.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
. . . The new law alters the traditional concept of sovereignty that you seem to think is so sacred.
. . . human rights are now a matter of international concern and not merely an issue to be decided on within the domestic jurisdiction of each respective state. . .
. . . This evolution in concept and in law represents a significant change from the traditional “state-centric” perspective of international law to which you seem to want to hang on to . . . [/quote]
Specifically, the ICC is an organization that runs contrary to fundamental American precepts and basic Constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence . . .
As Secretary Powell has said: