September 30, 2002
THE WISDOM OF MR. BUMBLE:
France waves the stick and carrot (Jon Henley in Paris, Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow, John Gittings in Shanghai and Nicholas Watt, October 1, 2002, The Guardian)France voiced its toughest opposition yet to the US-sponsored draft UN resolution threatening military action against Iraq yesterday, and warned Washington that any attempt to bring about a "regime change" would violate international law.In a front-page article in Le Monde, the foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said France wanted Iraq disarmed but could not and would not support action that threatened to further destabilise the Middle East, without full UN approval. [...]
The French foreign minister also warned that the Bush administration's policy of regime change in Iraq was illegal. "Any action aiming for regime change would contradict the rules of international law and open the door to things getting out of hand," he said.
If international law really forbids ridding a people of a murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein then the law truly is a ass. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 30, 2002 11:23 PM
Well, God forbid things get out of hand in the middle East. Whatever would we do without the French to look after us.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 30, 2002 10:54 PMa jig?
Posted by: oj at September 30, 2002 11:12 PMAre the French threatening to bring Americans before the Star Chamber of The Hague ? It certainly sounds like it to me.
What have the French to hide ? That all of Iraq's horror weapons carry a badge "made in France" ? His nuclear weapons - if he already has them - certainly do. Osirak was a French reactor, remember.
If international law is so useful, why are the Chinese still in Tibet?
Posted by: Harry at October 1, 2002 2:09 AMIn passing, let me note the time stamps on the last four posts. I assume that Peter and Harry are not in the east (though I think that violates one of OJ's rules), but, jeez, four young men as smart and good looking as we are really should get a life.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 1, 2002 8:11 AMI have a life and I live it on Maui, thanks.
Posted by: Harry at October 1, 2002 1:02 PMHarry definitely has a point about Tibet, but in that case there was no court which would give the Dalai Lama standing. In that sense, short of international response to PRC aggression, there could have been no response legally to the annexation. The US before 1945 recognized Tibet as a nominal part of the Republic of China, just as it recognized Manchuria as part of the ROC. None of this makes the PRC's seizure legitimate, but it doesn't make it illegitimate either. I'm not referring to methods here.
Posted by: Tom Roberts at October 1, 2002 1:39 PMThe International Law to which the anti-warriors appeal is not the actual, existing body of International Law. After all, the Iraqi sanctions are a perfectly "legal" international action, authorized by the Security Council. It is, instead, an ideal international law, imposed and enforced by France and Nelson Mandela that says, in effect, if the US wants to do it, its illegal.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 1, 2002 6:42 PMNo international law without an international
bailiff, I say.
I do not wholly disagree with Tom, but the
defaulter does not get to choose his
jurisdiction. If Tibet wasn't a violation of
international law, then what's the point of
having international laws?
If no one wanted to assert jurisdiction, then
the law is dead.
My argument starts and ends with a short
paragraph or two in S.B. Chrimes' "English
Constitutional Law" (been so long since I
read it I may have the title wrong, it was a
text in the Open University). Anyway,
Chrimes notes that in England there was a
market for justice for a time, barons' or king's.
And the customers went where they had at
least a chance of honest weight.
Where were the Tibetans to go? Nowhere.
So, don't speak of international law to me. I
never encountered the beast and don't
believe it exists.