November 7, 2003
AH, INTERNATIONAL LAW...:
Iraq is not America's to sell: International law is unequivocal - Paul Bremer's economic reforms are illegal (Naomi Klein, November 7, 2003, The Guardian)
Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonisation as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and cancelling all privatisation contracts that are flowing from these reforms.How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behaviour of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army's own code of war.
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.
Rumor has it we ignored Japanese and German law after WWII also. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 7, 2003 6:06 PM
Naomi Klein, another ignorant, middle-class child infatuated with her own self-righteousness.
Didn't Iraq's 'laws' allow arbitary arrest, torture and execution by the state? Maybe Brenner should be doing some of that.
Posted by: Amos at November 7, 2003 8:34 PM'Bremer'. Doh!
Posted by: Amos at November 7, 2003 8:35 PMDoes the left have any idea the extent to which these arguments that it makes boost support for the right?
Posted by: David Cohen at November 7, 2003 9:46 PMEspecially when the result of their legalisms and manipulations always seems to end up supporting the tyrant. After a while you stop thinking that it's just a coincidence, and conclude there's something in the Leftist that make it prefer tyranny.
If Bush can destroy international law, that would be a very good thing for the USA. It's never done us a bit of good.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 7, 2003 11:20 PMI've noticed that "international law" is always invoked, but nobody seems to be able to give a cite or to give a link to the Lawbook, or to quote the pertinent chapter & section.
Why, it's almost enough to make you think that International Law is nothing more than words pulled out of thin air. Have also noticed that international law seems to be "whatever will harm the interest of the USA."
Bingo, Raoul.
Posted by: Peter B at November 8, 2003 5:53 AMYes, ray, there's two kinds of international law: treaties which have the force of statutory law, and moral norms of university law professors, which have the force of the living Constitution.
Posted by: pj at November 8, 2003 9:36 AMPJ:
Nice, but funny how those moral norms seem to lose any sense of morality along the way.
Posted by: Peter B at November 8, 2003 10:40 AM