An Iraqi Appeal Under the UN charter?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by alfonso, Apr 2, 2003.

  1. Given that the US, Britain and Australia have undertaken an attack on a Member State of the United Nations without Security Council authorisation, could not Iraq appeal to the UN under Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN charter?

    Why not? They are a Member State no?

    Wouldn't the Security Council be compelled to pass a resolution condemning the illegal attack?

    Article 51
     
  2. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    Are you really that stupid? Any resolution "condemning the attack" would be vetoed by US and UK.

    BTW your assumption that the attack was undertaken without proper authorization is also wrong. The coalition countries submitted legal justification of the attack to the UN and to the best of my knowledge it has not been rebuffed.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.uk.legal/index.html
     


  3. Exactly. So they then take it to the General Assembly -- where it can't be vetoed -- and where, given the unanimous international outrage over American belligerence, it would be a shoe in to get the required 2/3rds vote.

    And Skeptic, and anyone else that wants to respond, is it really too much to ask you to speak to the argument and keep your opinions of me to yourself?
     

  4. So I'm absolutely stunned that he would find it legal. :)

    And in Skeptic's own words, "Courts decide legality, not legal experts".
     
  5. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    I'll take it over alfonso's opinion though. I kind of think UK Attorney General is a better lawyer then alfonso and msfe combined.

    The point is there is absolutely no reason to label the attack as "illegal" until it is proven so. The opinions vary.
     
  6. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    In your original statement you are talking about UNSC and article 51. Now it is General Assembly which is not even mentioned in that article.

    You should make up your mind where you want to complain about iraq "injustice" and you better make it quick - Saddam is already dead and we'll be in Baghdad in a few days. :D
     
  7. which is why a petition to the UN would be futile. the administration has essentially said that the UN and diplomacy are irrelevant, that warfare is an acceptable first means for dispute resolution, and that the US will abide by international law only when it is to the US's advantage, leaving the US position and war as the only two alternatives available. unless the UN thinks it can muster up support for a global military action, there's no point.
     


  8. Article 51 is the first step. Since it will obviously be vetoed, the next step is to appeal to the General Assembly under Resolution 377 'Uniting For Peace'; whose purpose is the maintanence of peace where there is lack of unanimity in the permanent members of the Security Council and a threat of peace, breach of peace of act of agression.

    There was a similar scenario in the Suez crisis, where the US took Britain and France to the SC but they were vetoed, and then brought about a cessation of hostilities through the General Assembly drawing on Resolution 377.

    And if I were you, I wouldn't be too cocky in thinking Baghdad is gonna be quick, easy or even any signal that the war is won.
     
  9. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    By the time it can be arranged we will already take not only Iraq, but also Iran and Saudi Arabia. Given, that we are already in Kuwait we will control 90% or world's oil and no member of the General Assembly will dare vote against us. :)

    Seriously though, I do not think Iraq will get 2/3 of the members. The coalition of the willing is 50 countries now, the axis of weasel is 3 countries, the rest will obstain.
     
    #10     Apr 2, 2003