One item was noticeable in Mr. Bush's press conference - he made it clear that he considers war against Iraq as self defense. I would not be surprised to see the USA deliver a formal notice to Kofi Annan that it is exercising that right of self-defense which is guaranteed by the U.N. Charter.

It will be easier for bodies like the International Criminal Court to prosecute statesman for disfavored actions once the open borders crowd undermines the principle of national sovereignty.

Bush will never be brought before the ICC. There are many aircraft carriers, lots of troops and a solid US Constitution between him and the ICC. But I've always thought that Blair risks having to spend the rest of his days in a cell with Milosevic.

Henry -



No, the UN charter defines self-defense very clearly as repulsion of armed invasion. This doesn't apply to our situation with Iraq, so an attack without Security Council approval would probably violate the charter. Some people argue that since Iraq has violated the cease-fire terms of Gulf War I, America would be acting within existing Security Council resolutions, but this is a legalistic argument. Clearly we'd be violating the spirit of the charter.



This is hardly new. The military actions ordered by Bill Clinton in Sudan and Kosovo were illegal. The no-fly zones in Iraq (which apparently are not part of the official cease-fire arrangements) are probably illegal. Invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban was probably illegal, though that's comlicated by the fact that almost no-one recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.



I myself have the quaint notion that the United States of America signs a foreign treaty, we should make a good-faith effort to abide by its terms. So it's right for Bush to seek a UN resolution authorizing an invasion. If he doesn't get it, he should, with approval of Congress, effectively withdraw from the UN: we should announce that while we will continue to cooperate with the UN on many issues (like its humanitarian missions), the US will no longer consider ourselves bound by the charter. Similarly, we would no longer expect any other country to abide by the UN either.

Update: this article mentions that the invasion of Afghanistan in fact had Security Council approval.



">http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5564

They talked this morning on NPR about some "Defense of Peace" provision in the Charter, I guess last invoked by us during Suez, which allows the entire UN to demand an end to any war or some such nonsense.

I myself have the quaint notion that the United States of America signs a foreign treaty, we should make a good-faith effort to abide by its terms.




It would also be nice to start seeing other countries held to the treaties they signed, and resolutions they endorsed, too. Why is only the US required to abide by treaties that everyone else can break or ignore with impunity?



The problem is that UN resolutions, like treaties, have always been meaningless unless someone has shown the willingness to back them up. Now we are seeing people pretending that they are self-enforcing, so there's not even that need.



The Security Council could pass a resolution repealing the Laws of Gravitation and setting pi equal to three, and only the US would be criticized not only for its failure to voluntarily abide by that resolution, but for not actively trying to implement it.

You never know, maybe the ICC will go after Democrats first. On the other hand, they might just grab a Texas governor on vacation in Europe. After all, capital punishment is a war crime, is it not?

AUTHOR: Paul Jaminet
EMAIL: pauljaminet@pauljaminet.com
IP:
URL: http://www.pauljaminet.com
DATE: 03/08/2003 06:54:00 PM
AUTHOR: Paul Jaminet
EMAIL: pauljaminet@pauljaminet.com
URL: http://www.pauljaminet.com
DATE: 3/08/2003 06:54:00 PM