Effectiveness of International Law & UN

This is something that i have noticed cropping up lately. The legality of the war in Iraq, the application of International Law towards the US in regards to Human Rights etc.

I've never been a poster who's drawn on Articles and the charter for the UN or respective Human Rights/International Law articles, so please bear with me if i fumble.

In regards to the United Nations:

Issue 1:

The Charter of the United Nations, universally accepted as legally binding, is clear and unambiguous on this issue: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Article 2(4)), and further, it is for the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" which would allow for any possible limited resort to armed force (Article 39).

The Charter doesn't really include the factor of pre-emptive strikes, however it seems that this issue has been used in regards to the Coalitions invasion of Iraq. I'm not saying that this pre-emptive reason gives the coalition the right to the invasion, but I'm wondering how far it goes. Does this exclusion extend to other nations without the military might of the coalition?

Does the Coalitions actions towards Iraq provide a precedence in which other nations could use to justify invasions of other nations borders. If China proposed to the world that Taiwan was a threat to their national security, could they also step forward and invade with no fear of International Intervention?

Issue 2

The effectiveness of the UN itself when applied to the major powers of the world.

We've seen the Un intervene in situations where minor countries have had humanitarian issues, or when they judged that the stability of that region was an important issue. The UN steps forward to restrict the violence that minor nations may create, and in the past they have had some great successes.

However, surely the UN is not just there to Lord over minor nations. Is the UN not there to watch all its members ? Because i've not seen the Un restrict any of the major nations like Russia, the US, Britain etc. Minor members are restricted but not the Major. Why is this?

In regards to International Law:

Issue

As far as i know, a law is not worth much unless it can be enforced. So who is there to provide the enforcing. In the past, prior to Sept 11, the US stepped forward as the worlds' sheriff, providing the main military resources to back International guidelines. However, now that its the US thats in the spotlight, what nation is willing to face US pressure?

Therefore, while its a great aspiration to provide an International Framework for the application of Law to all aspects of the world, unless it can be applied to all members, its not unbiased. Justice is not Blind, and it seems to have lost its power.

This is not a dig at the Coalition. I'm really wondering abt International Law past Iraq. Past the "War on Terror". Where does it leave us, that International Law no longer has the power to restrict people/nations?

Johnmb

Originally posted by klaz
Issue 1:

The Charter of the United Nations, universally accepted as legally binding, is clear and unambiguous on this issue: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Article 2(4)), and further, it is for the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" which would allow for any possible limited resort to armed force (Article 39).

The Charter doesn't really include the factor of pre-emptive strikes, however it seems that this issue has been used in regards to the Coalitions invasion of Iraq. I'm not saying that this pre-emptive reason gives the coalition the right to the invasion, but I'm wondering how far it goes. Does this exclusion extend to other nations without the military might of the coalition?

Does the Coalitions actions towards Iraq provide a precedence in which other nations could use to justify invasions of other nations borders. If China proposed to the world that Taiwan was a threat to their national security, could they also step forward and invade with no fear of International Intervention?
What the coalition has done doesn't really set a precedent, but in the example you give, China can get away with just as much as the US, just look at Tibet. The only reason China hasn't invaded Taiwan is because of a deal Taiwan has with the US, the UN are currently powerless to intervene.

Issue 2

The effectiveness of the UN itself when applied to the major powers of the world.

We've seen the Un intervene in situations where minor countries have had humanitarian issues, or when they judged that the stability of that region was an important issue. The UN steps forward to restrict the violence that minor nations may create, and in the past they have had some great successes.

However, surely the UN is not just there to Lord over minor nations. Is the UN not there to watch all its members ? Because i've not seen the Un restrict any of the major nations like Russia, the US, Britain etc. Minor members are restricted but not the Major. Why is this?
Because the US, Russia, UK, France, and China, all have UNSC vetoes, which effectively puts them and their allies beyond the reach of the UN. Until those vetoes are done away with, the UN can't even attempt to do anything about those countries.

In regards to International Law:

Issue

As far as i know, a law is not worth much unless it can be enforced. So who is there to provide the enforcing. In the past, prior to Sept 11, the US stepped forward as the worlds' sheriff, providing the main military resources to back International guidelines. However, now that its the US thats in the spotlight, what nation is willing to face US pressure?
None legally can due to the UNSC veto the US has. If the veto didn't exist, there still wouldn't be anybody to stand up to them militarily, however, sanctions would be very effective.

Therefore, while its a great aspiration to provide an International Framework for the application of Law to all aspects of the world, unless it can be applied to all members, its not unbiased. Justice is not Blind, and it seems to have lost its power.
Which is the biggest flaw in the UN as it stands.

This is not a dig at the Coalition. I'm really wondering abt International Law past Iraq. Past the "War on Terror". Where does it leave us, that International Law no longer has the power to restrict people/nations?
Hopefully it will lead to most nations deciding to redraw the framework of the UN, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon, as nobody else seems to want to take the lead in such a fight.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
The Charter of the United Nations, universally accepted as legally binding, is clear and unambiguous on this issue: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Article 2(4)),

IS it clear and unambiguous though?

For example, the US did not use their force against the territorial integrity, nor against the political independence of Iraq. There is an inevitable post-war interruption of political independance, but the US are actively working to restore - and indeed improve - that political independance. Nor did they seek to permanently take control of the territory of Iraq.

OK - conspiracists and skeptics may disagree on both of those counts, but the fact is that they are - at least - arguable either way.

The force used arguably does not fall under either categorisation.

and further, it is for the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" which would allow for any possible limited resort to armed force (Article 39).

And this is the catch-all.....that the UNSC will decide what constitutes a breach of 2(4) (on a case-by-case basis, I assume).

The Charter doesn't really include the factor of pre-emptive strikes,

No, but the inclusion of such was considered when the article was being written, and specifically chosen to be omitted. This is telling, because they didn't explicitly say that such an action woul dnever be permissable - they just refused to categorise it in any sort of "get out of jail free" language like is done for reactive self-defence in Article 50.

Does this exclusion extend to other nations without the military might of the coalition?

There is no exclusion. All acts that are not explicitly covered by Article 50 can be held subject to a decision of legality by the UNSC. It is the Council's decision whether or not to do so, and the result is dependant on the firmly-established voting method inherent in the UNSCs "modus operandi".

Does the Coalitions actions towards Iraq provide a precedence in which other nations could use to justify invasions of other nations borders.

Nope. The UN criticism of Israel following its pre-emptive attack on Egypt is an earlier precedent which shows that such pre-emptive actions are not necessarily acceptable.

The failure of the UN to actually take a "punitive reaction" of any significance in both cases may tend to show that such an argument (of permission/predence) holds some weight...but again, there is nothing in the UN which means that the UNSC are obliged to judge new actions based on the benchmarks set down by judgements on older ones.

Therefore, while its a great aspiration to provide an International Framework for the application of Law to all aspects of the world, unless it can be applied to all members, its not unbiased. Justice is not Blind, and it seems to have lost its power.

I'd agree, except that Justice never had its power to lose in this case. Since its inception, the UNSC version of Justice has been far from blind, and prior to the UN there was never any blind Justice which could be considered as having power to lose.

I'm really wondering abt International Law past Iraq. Past the "War on Terror". Where does it leave us, that International Law no longer has the power to restrict people/nations?

It never did.

The UN's flavour of international law is based on a notion of the more powerful nations respecting it, and using their power to enforce it as necessary on others.

There never was, nor can be, a possibility of seriously enforcing what we term International Law on those who are big and powerful enough. We are always dependant on them agreeing to adhere to it.

The one poitn which makes it even worse is that in the case of the UNSC permanent members, not only are they (or some of them, at least) above having the law enforced on them...they are also the judges, and there is no "conflict of interest" clause that says a permie member cannot have any input in the decision process an alleged infraction of their own.

In other words, Internation Law is centred on a philosophy that the biggest players must be their own police.

jc

In other words, Internation Law is centred on a philosophy that the biggest players must be their own police

So, the fact that everyone refers to International Law, shouldn't have an impact on the actions of the worlds players? I mean, whats the point of these Laws, if they're not really applicable to everyone, regardless of their Political/Military might?

For example, the US did not use their force against the territorial integrity, nor against the political independence of Iraq.

But they did. Their forces crossed the borders of Iraq, with the intent of occupying the soverign state of Iraq. They breached another nations borders. Its irrevelent that Saddam was a despot, they sent their forces across another nations borders, without UN approval. Whether or not the UN council, declares the invasion as illegal, their breach of the agreement occured.

As for the political independence, they might be considering granting Iraqi's a new government ruled by the Iraqi people, but they did for a period replace the government with their own military leadership. Sure, everyone can point out that they're doing good, by doing this. But they did replace another nations leadership without direct approval from the UN.

And this is the catch-all.....that the UNSC will decide what constitutes a breach of 2(4) (on a case-by-case basis, I assume).

The breach has already occured. What the UNSC is determining is their public response to that breach. But then as you've said above, the UNSC cannot affect the powerful players within the UN.

But thanks, Bonkey & Johnmb you did answer my questions. It just strikes me strange that there so many references to International Law, when in fact, it has no real power, and has more in common with the Bible's reference to the twelve Commandments. Lovely Ideals, but rarely followed.

Johnmb

Originally posted by klaz
But thanks, Bonkey & Johnmb you did answer my questions. It just strikes me strange that there so many references to International Law, when in fact, it has no real power, and has more in common with the Bible's reference to the twelve Commandments. Lovely Ideals, but rarely followed.

That has always been the problem. The powerful are immune. Even the rules of war only apply to the losers, as the winners are the ones who have to enforce it. It's a pity really, because the ideal of the UN is good, but it was burdened from the start by the idea of allowing individual countries to veto.

That has always been the problem. The powerful are immune. Even the rules of war only apply to the losers, as the winners are the ones who have to enforce it. It's a pity really, because the ideal of the UN is good, but it was burdened from the start by the idea of allowing individual countries to veto.

Somewhat relevent, but it just occured to me, but does Human Rights & the Geneva Convention also, fall within this restriction? Applied to only those without power..

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
For example, the US did not use their force against the territorial integrity, nor against the political independence of Iraq. There is an inevitable post-war interruption of political independance, but the US are actively working to restore - and indeed improve - that political independance. Nor did they seek to permanently take control of the territory of Iraq.

I'm not sure you can claim that JC.

Lets Make Enemies

Some recent highlights: At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution. Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licenses the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."

The CPA has also confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4 billion the US government is spending on reconstruction will be administered by the US Embassy in Iraq. The money will be spent over five years and will fundamentally redesign Iraq's most basic infrastructure, including its electricity, water, oil and communications sectors, as well as its courts and police. Iraq's future governments will have no say in the construction of these core sectors of Iraqi society. Retired Rear Adm. David Nash, who heads the Project Management Office, which administers the funds, describes the $18.4 billion as "a gift from the American people to the people of Iraq." He appears to have forgotten the part about gifts being something you actually give up. And in the same eventful week, US engineers began construction on fourteen "enduring bases" in Iraq, capable of housing the 110,000 soldiers who will be posted here for at least two more years. Even though the bases are being built with no mandate from an Iraqi government, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations in Iraq, called them "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East."

The US occupation authority has also found a sneaky way to maintain control over Iraq's armed forces. Bremer has issued an executive order stating that even after the interim Iraqi government has been established, the Iraqi army will answer to US commander Lieut. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. In order to pull this off, Washington is relying on a legalistic reading of a clause in UN Security Council Resolution 1511, which puts US forces in charge of Iraq's security until "the completion of the political process" in Iraq. Since the "political process" in Iraq is never-ending, so, it seems, is US military control.

In the same flurry of activity, the CPA announced that it would put further constraints on the Iraqi military by appointing a national security adviser for Iraq. This US appointee would have powers equivalent to those held by Condoleezza Rice and will stay in office for a five-year term, long after Iraq is scheduled to have made the transition to a democratically elected government.

Taken together, these latest measures paint a telling picture of what a "free Iraq" will look like: The United States will maintain its military and corporate presence through fourteen enduring military bases and the largest US Embassy in the world. It will hold on to authority over Iraq's armed forces, its security and economic policy and the design of its core infrastructure--but the Iraqis can deal with their decrepit hospitals all by themselves, complete with their chronic drug shortages and lack of the most basic sanitation capacity. (US Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson revealed just how low a priority this was when he commented that Iraq's hospitals would be fixed if the Iraqis "just washed their hands and cleaned the crap off the walls.")

If that's not usurping a country's political independence and territorial integrity, we may need to see new definitions for those terms.

Johnmb

Originally posted by klaz
Somewhat relevent, but it just occured to me, but does Human Rights & the Geneva Convention also, fall within this restriction? Applied to only those without power..

Evidently so, as camp x-ray proves. Again, the trouble is that the UN are expected to enforce such things, so those five countries and their allies are safe, no matter what they do.

Evidently so, as camp x-ray proves. Again, the trouble is that the UN are expected to enforce such things, so those five countries and their allies are safe, no matter what they do

So, The UN is really there, as a card to played by the Major Players when they wish something stopped? Like, Israel-Palestine (I know, I know, the US have vetoed this but it has been raised by other major powers), Nuclear testing in other countries, Sanctions against member states, embargoes etc. Its just another tool in the Arsenal of a major power?

So, why is there so much emphasis on the UN charter and its application on these boards? Ever since i started posting within these forums, i've always seen references to International laws, UN charter etc, in support of peopels opinions against US, Coalition & others actions. But whats the point, when you could just point out Gods commandment "thou shalt not Kill"? If i was to point out a reference to the Bible to support an action on the International Theatre, I'd be laughed out of the forum, but the UN hardly seems any more substantial........

Johnmb

Originally posted by klaz
So, The UN is really there, as a card to played by the Major Players when they wish something stopped? Like, Israel-Palestine (I know, I know, the US have vetoed this but it has been raised by other major powers), Nuclear testing in other countries, Sanctions against member states, embargoes etc. Its just another tool in the Arsenal of a major power?

So, why is there so much emphasis on the UN charter and its application on these boards? Ever since i started posting within these forums, i've always seen references to International laws, UN charter etc, in support of peopels opinions against US, Coalition & others actions. But whats the point, when you could just point out Gods commandment "thou shalt not Kill"? If i was to point out a reference to the Bible to support an action on the International Theatre, I'd be laughed out of the forum, but the UN hardly seems any more substantial........

Well, because the vast majority of countries have signed up to the Charter, and accept it as law, and as a good thing. It is by no means perfect, but it is the best we have.

sry, if i'm not getting this properly. I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but this is something i've been wondering abt for ages.

Well, because the vast majority of countries have signed up to the Charter, and accept it as law, and as a good thing. It is by no means perfect, but it is the best we have.

I understand its a good thing, since for the most part most nations follow the charter, and they're restricted by it. However, since its the major powers that have the most influence in the world, and its their actions that influence us the most.

Iraq-Coalition, for example, since its the biggest issue concerning everyone at the moment. The Coalition, which contains two major powers within the UN, decided to replace another government (I'm not going to go on abt whether its right or wrong), however, since these two nations are not really expected to follow International Law, they have complete freedom to do what they will. (with the exception of their own domestic populations opinions)

Johnmb

Originally posted by klaz
sry, if i'm not getting this properly. I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but this is something i've been wondering abt for ages.

I understand its a good thing, since for the most part most nations follow the charter, and they're restricted by it. However, since its the major powers that have the most influence in the world, and its their actions that influence us the most.

Iraq-Coalition, for example, since its the biggest issue concerning everyone at the moment. The Coalition, which contains two major powers within the UN, decided to replace another government (I'm not going to go on abt whether its right or wrong), however, since these two nations are not really expected to follow International Law, they have complete freedom to do what they will. (with the exception of their own domestic populations opinions)

I would say that they are expected to follow international law, it is just that when they decide not to, there is nothing that can be done. Why the other countries don't at least try to do something about it, I'm not sure. Personally, at the very least I think that the veto should be replaced with a referral. If one or more of those five countries doesn't like a resolution, they can refer it to the General Assembly, but if 60% of the Assembly (equates to the 9/15 required in the UNSC) approves it, then the resolution passes regardless as to the wishes of six of less UNSC members, regardless as to who they are.