Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Kofi Annan ha ragione

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm
The Illegal Iraq Invasion
According to the UN Charter, the U.S. Constitution,
Resolution 1441, and the Nuremberg Charter
by Edward Jayne and Ronald Kramer
www.dissidentvoice.org
September 20, 2004
The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is
only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by
the vote of the UN Security Council.  This did not happen in the case of the
recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the
U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution
to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when
they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it.
Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary,
since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had
already granted this right.  However, this is simply not true.  As
demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular
resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for
a final decision by the Security Council.  Because the U.S. and U.K.
withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an
invasion.  As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who
brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial
international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Significantly, the Preamble to the UN Charter begins by declaring its
primary purpose is "to prevent the scourge of war," and Article 1 repeats
this prerogative by stating that the UN's role is to "maintain international
peace and security."  As a peremptory norm of international law, Article
2(4) more explicitly prohibits the use of military force in international
affairs except in accord with the guiding principles of the UN: "All members
shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."  In retrospect this
emphasis may be appreciated as a consequence of the UN Charter having been
drafted and adopted at the end of World War II, when the avoidance of
warfare seemed of the utmost importance.  Today, in light of the Iraq
invasion, it seems no less important.
If and when warfare seems unavoidable, Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII of
the UN Charter specify under what circumstances military conflict can be
sanctioned.  Article 41 declares that effective means short of conflict must
first be employed to resolve differences, and Article 42 makes it plain that
only with the failure of these preliminary measures may the Security Council
vote to permit military action.  This decision is obtained by vote as
specified by Article 27(e) earlier in the Charter.
Both Articles 41 and 42 are relatively short and may be quoted in their
entirety:
Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and
it may call upon the Members of nations to apply such measures.  These may
include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail,
sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication and
the severance of diplomatic relations.
Also permitted by Article 41 as a "measure not involving the use of armed
force" would be the inspections specified by Resolution 1441 in order to
ascertain Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Only the
failure of these measures to satisfy the Security Council would justify
warfare as explained by the next article:
Article 42:  Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for
in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain
or restore international peace and security.  Such actions may include
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea, or land forces
of Members of the United Nations.
In a nutshell, if preventative measures are found to be unsuccessful,
then--and only then--can the Security Council decide to permit warfare.
First there must be an effort short of warfare, after which warfare may be
undertaken once the consent of the Security Council has been obtained
through its finding that the preliminary effort has been unsuccessful.
Obviously, this consent may only be ascertained by means of a vote--exactly
the vote Secretary Powell first sought, then avoided, once he realized he
would lose it, since UN inspections had come up with no evidence of WMD in
Iraq.  As a result, Powell was not able to recruit a majority of delegates
who supported an invasion, and, even if he had, both France and Russia were
prepared to veto the measure. He accordingly skipped the required vote,
after which President Bush launched his invasion--necessarily an illegal act
of war, since it had not been approved by the Security Council.
Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and
unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military
conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide
that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without
success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken.
Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare
by the Security Council.  Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from
the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN
Security Council.  As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN
Charter and therefore illegal.
The only exception to this sequence is under an extreme emergency as
specified by Article 51 of Chapter VII: "Nothing in the Present Charter
shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if
an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . ."
However, the situation with Iraq did not fit this description, since Iraq
had never attacked the U.S. or U.K., and there was no evidence of any
imminent armed attack against anybody else.  Thus Article 51 did not apply.
Some apologists for the invasion argue that Resolution 1441, which
established the inspections regime in Iraq, somehow rendered unnecessary a
Security Council vote to justify warfare as specified by Articles 41 and 42.
The argument is simply not valid.  Significantly, Resolution 1441 is
specified to act "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."
Chapter VII includes all Articles from 39 to 51, of which 41 and 42 have a
direct bearing upon the possibility of an Iraq invasion.  By specifying its
conformity to Chapter VII, Resolution 1441 confirms the necessary
application of both Articles 41 and 42 for the Security Council to accept
the transition from peaceful to military means.  In other words, the choice
of Powell to withdraw his second resolution did not eliminate the need for
permission from the Security Council, especially after steps preliminary to
its vote had already been undertaken fully in accord with resolution 1441.
Also, Resolution 1441's second listed "decision" describes inspections as "a
final opportunity to comply" preceding "subsequent resolutions of the
Council." This reference to "subsequent resolutions clearly establishes the
inspections program as a preliminary measure to the Security Council vote
obliged by Article 42.  The same is true of the twelfth "decision" of
Resolution 1441, which emphasizes the necessity, "to convene immediately
upon receipt of a report [bearing upon inspections] . . . in order to
consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the
relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and
security."  The wording is euphemistic, but here again it accords with
Article 42 to the effect that a vote would have been needed to mandate war
before an invasion could be launched.  Without such a vote (because Powell
knew it would be negative), the invasion became totally illegal as specified
by the UN Charter and therefore no less illegal relevant to Resolution 1441.
Nor could the Security Council be bypassed because of earlier Resolutions
678 and 687 of the Security Council at the time of the Gulf War in 1991.
These were intended to compel Iraq first to withdraw from Kuwait and then to
fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.  Some invasion apologists have
argued that these resolutions somehow provided legal authority for the later
invasion, but this is not true.  All UN Security Council Resolutions are
specific relevant to time and space, and they cannot be cited years later to
justify unilateral actions.  Moreover, no country alone can presume to play
the role of judge, jury and high executioner.  Only the Security Council can
find "material breach" and authorize "all necessary means."  This it was
prepared to do on March 17, prevented only by the U.S. and U.K.'s withdrawal
of their resolution
The U.S. Constitution also compels the need for a Security Council vote,
since our nation is a signatory of the UN Charter, thus giving the Charter
the status of a treaty guaranteed by the Constitution itself.  The Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution in Article VI, Section 2, specifically grants
international treaties the same status as the Constitution itself and all
state and federal laws enacted in accord with the Constitution.  Moreover,
as specified by Article 103 of the UN Charter, the Charter is the highest
treaty of the world and supersedes any other international agreement.
Accordingly, the Supremacy Clause extends the application of Articles 41 and
42 to all warfare conducted by our own particular government except under
emergencies dictated by Article 51.
President Bush and Powell might have had a better case in justifying an
invasion if they had bypassed the involvement of the UN in the first place.
They could have applied the precedent that the United States already went to
war against Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and,
most recently Kosovo, without the approval of the Security Council.  In the
latter instance, President Clinton invoked the NATO connection, and the
potential illegality of this decision was ignored in view of the need to
terminate genocidal killings as soon as possible.  The obvious demand for
quick measures was satisfied, but at the cost of reinforcing a dangerous
precedent in international relations.
Regarding Iraq, however, the U.S. and U.K. presented their case to the UN
Security Council in order to obtain Resolution 1441 that met the demands of
Article 41, and then, as required by Article 42, presented a second
resolution permitting an invasion because of Iraq's failure to meet the
terms of Resolution 1441.  All of this was intended to meet the guidelines
of the UN Charter, obliging the U.S. to abide by its final authority in
determining the legitimacy of military action against Iraq.  However, as
already indicated, Powell withdrew this second resolution once it became
plain the Security Council would reject U.S. arguments that sufficient
evidence had been disclosed to justify an invasion and that every
alternative short of military conflict had been exhausted.  Bush thereupon
bypassed the Security Council's vote by launching a unilateral preemptive
strike on entirely illegal grounds.
Significantly, without the consent of the Security Council, those who
planned and implemented the invasion of Iraq can be held responsible for war
crimes as defined by the Nuremberg Charter.  One doubts this will ever
happen, since victors seldom prosecute themselves.  However, it should,
since U.S. government officials responsible for the Iraq invasion without
the sanction of the Security Council are in direct violation of the
Nuremberg Charter's prohibition against "crimes against peace" and "crimes
against humanity." Therefore, they are liable for criminal prosecution by
the new International Criminal Court.  Specifically, the Nuremberg Charter
describes "Crimes against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an
aggressive war."  The invasion of Iraq clearly falls under this category,
since it violates the UN Charter, signed by all its members, the U.S.
included.  Moreover, the Nuremberg Charter notes that "to initiate a war of
aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime."  Granted there are many war crimes deserving of
prosecution, inclusive of prohibited weaponry, the mistreatment of
prisoners, etc., but the very worst of all is the illegal resort to warfare,
and of course its illegality ultimately depends on  its violation of the
U.N. Charter.
The Nuremberg Charter's general laws of war also prohibit the use of weapons
or tactics that cause indiscriminate harm to noncombatants.  The "shock and
awe" bombing of Baghdad and the use of depleted uranium tipped shells appear
to violate these laws of war.  As already indicated, government officials
and military personnel who engage in these violations can be prosecuted
under the new International Criminal Court (ICC).  True, the U.S. is not yet
a signatory to the ICC, but the Iraqi government has a right to make its
appeal to the UN, and the ICC would thereby have technical jurisdiction over
any war crimes committed during the conflict.
In sum, the U.S., U.K., and their allies have been aggressor nations in the
invasion of Iraq, since they have conducted this invasion in clear violation
of both international and domestic law.  By now as many as 37,000 Iraqi and
almost 1,000 Americans are estimated to have been killed, and the number who
were injured surpasses anybody's guess.  No matter how vicious or
bloodthirsty the behavior of combatants on either side, the responsibility
for their acts of violence primarily reverts to the government leaders who
possessed the authority to impose upon them an illegal war rejected by the
world at large.
But see for yourself.   Almost any college or municipal reference librarian
can provide the necessary documents to confirm the arguments presented here.

not been approved by the Security Council.
Puttanata.
Taglio il resto visto che sono le solite puttanate trite e ritrite.
Peccato che Namib non ci voglia dire su cosa Anna avrebbe ragione.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Invece di usare espletivi a iosa, faresti bene a considerare che Kofi 
Annan ha preso una posizione chiara contro l'invasione. Pensi forse che 
non abbia consultato l'ufficio legale dell'ONU prima di farlo, fanciullo?

 Puttanata senza nulla a sostegno, visto che il voto non c'e' stato.
Lasciamo a Giano stabilire quale sia l'unica puttana priva di sostegno...
Se fosse come dici, la politica si limiterebbe ad un banale esercizio di
ragioneria. 2 +2 = 4. Facile no?
Ma cosě non č. Non c'č stato il voto? E allora? La politica č un'arte
raffinata. Spesso una dichiarazione o un voto vanno intesi esattamente al
contrario. Tutti sanno che un anno e mezzo fa gli Usa hanno fatto carte
false pur di convincere o comprare i 9 voti necessari nel consiglio di
sicurezza per raggiungere una vittoria politica. Ricorderai che la disputa
non era sul passaggio della risoluzione. Infatti la Francia avrebbe posto il
veto. Ma lo spartiacque non era questo. Anche in presenza di veto la
"vittoria" sarebbe stata di Bush, se avesse raggiunto i 9 voti. Che
avrebbero sancito l'isolamento della Francia e l'egemonia statunitense.
Quando č stato chiaro che nemmeno i paesi piů ricattabili avrebbero seguito
Bush nella sua sciagurata avventura, alla casa bianca decisero di non andare
alla sconfessione palese e ritirarono la mozione.
Ma la sconfitta era netta. Il gelo con cui č stato accolto il recente
discorso di Bush all'Onu lo conferma. E la situazione attuale irakena lo
sancisce con tanto di ceralacca.
Naturalmente non si pretende che queste interpretazioni siano appannaggio di
chi distingue tra armi e depositi di distruzione di massa. Ma questo č un
altro discorso.

di farlo, fanciullo?
Direi proprio di no, visto che non esiste alcun "ufficio legale
dell'ONU" per quanto sappia io e per quanto stabilista il Charter delle
Nazioni Unite.
-Stefano

massa.
Depo.... CHE??? :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 *LOL*
Memoria corta? E allora cito testuale:
Charles Duelfer: "In Iraq non ci sono depositi di armi di distruzione di
massa.".
De Cesari: "DEPOSITI. Che e' diverso da ARMI.".
Pete: Ah, ah, ah, ah

 altro discorso.
#_Chevvoi... con tutti quelli che jie so' passati dentro la brioscia, come
fa accapi' piu`de checcazzo se tratta!
Ciao.
Giannozzo
P.S.: Se t'enteressa, co' i prezzi pure dev'esse' calata.

 wrote in message
news:Lp15d.2217$O9.1...@news4.tin.it...

#_Te l'ho detto che ancora non ha capito. Pero`...la Lollona mia e`testarda
come le mulone de razza!
Le avevo trovato una squadra de seminaristi tutti "arrapati", m'ha detto che
le squadre non jie 'nteressano...solo cazzi prende! M'ha fatto perde clienti
a mazzi st'impunita!
Giannozzo


1)> Puttanata senza nulla a sostegno.
2)> Cosa tutta da dimostrare all'atto pratico.
3)> Puttanata senza nulla a sostegno.
4)> Se lo dici tu...
5)> *ROTFL*
6)> Se lo dici tu.... :)
7)> Depo.... CHE??? :)
1) e 3)- Oltre le marchette, te sei fatta fòri pure 'l lampione ?
2) -L'atto pratico e`solo quello de mette 'n funzione la brioscia e nun
c'e`gniente da dimostra'...oramai sai cosa devi fa'!
4)- Eccecredo che te lo dico io!
5)- Nun te rotola' tanto come le gatte 'n calore , che Giannozzo nun ce la
fa piu`a rialzatte...pesi come 'na vacca( disse il bue alla mulona)...anzi
proprio nun te rialzo piu`, che l'ultima vorta m'hai rotto la schiena!
Sta attaccata ar palo e lavora in piedi.
6)- Si...arridajie!     STA ATTACCATA AR PALO !...   A R   P A L O O O !!!
Nun ave' paura che nun te pijiano pe 'na strega!
7) -Depo...SQUADRE de   DEPO-CAZZI! Anche a prezzo stracciato di Paralel
Import, m'hai fatto perde 50 "iuro" a ttesta de parte mia ...come la
mettiamo?
Giannozzo

Pete: Ah, ah, ah, ah
*ROTFL*
Ridi delle ca***te che scrivi? :)  Perche' e' veramente bello vederti
scrivere stronzate e poi riderci sopra :)
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Sh05d.7126$N45.1...@twister2.libero.it...
Zi zi, ha brobrio ragione.

 Zi zi, ha brobrio ragione.
Ancora in giro, fascista razzista di merda?
-- 
Per non dimenticare:
http://snipurl.com/SdC_ed_il_vino

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:415493EE...@people.it...
http://www.bynoi.com/decesari.html

 
Ibidem come per i due precedenti post :)
-Stefano