Legal Order?

[Ali Barber]

I know there is already some debate in the press about the legality issue of attacking Iraq with a failed new resolution from the UN, but I thought we should air it among the people it will affect.

If the US/UK press for a new resolution and it fails, especially if it doesn't receive the moral majority of 9 votes rather than simply being vetoed by the French/Russians/Chinese, and the orders are then given to attack Iraq anyway, is that a legal order?

It may be academic to the Army and Navy types as I can't see many of them being captured. But some aircraft will get shot down/have accidents that result in the downed aircrew being captured. Iraq could then claim they are war criminals and treat them even worse than they would expect.

Ultimately, it's the winners who write the history books so we will probably be claiming a moral justification after it is all over. But what happens between D-Day and the victory parade.

Maybe it is time to say stuff the UN and just get on with it while 1441 is still on our side?

[whowhenwhy]

I am not hinting in any way that the US/UK is anything like Hitler's Germany; however, how many people have noticed the links between what is happening now, and the collapse of the League of Nations in the 1930s? I seem to remember that the League failed because of the US' attitude towards it. Can the UN continue after what WILL happen next week? Only as long as the rest of the world is happy with the knowledge that the UN can work with the permission of the US.

One reporter did say something worthwhile yesterday though. A comment that ran something along the lines that France is only being difficult because they are desperately trying to regain some diplomatic power internationally.

[Tourist]

Does it matter if the UN falls apart?
Has it ever done any good?
Unless it shows it has teeth, what is the point in having resolutions?
The past few weeks have just shown what a strange farce the security council is. Why does every country not get to vote? Why Angola for god sake?!
Waste of space, the real world of international politics works on the principle that "might is right" not democracy, and people who believe otherwise are idealistic fools. We might wish they were right, but they aint.:rolleyes:

[Scud-U-Like]

The permanent members of the Security Council are the 5 'victor' nations of WW2 (each of which, holds the power of veto), whilst other states take the remaining 10 seats on the Council, on a 2-yearly rotation. Bearing in mind nearly 60 years have passed since the end of the War, this structure does seem outdated.

Whilst ever we have a superpower in the world (the US being the sole superpower today), the UN will always be subordinated to the interests of that superpower. Like it or lump it, that's the way the world goes round.

International 'law' is something of a misnomer. There are as many lawyers saying UK/US action against Iraq is lawful, as there are lawyers saying it is not. In order to have any force, laws must be enforcible (by a court) and must carry sanctions, to be used against those who break the law. Except in the case of specially convened courts (eg The Nuremburg Tribunal), there is no ultimate means of punishing breaches of international law. Who, for example, would go and arrest The President of the USA for an alleged breach of international law, and how? In that respect, when it does happen, the enforcement of international law amounts to 'victor's justice'. You just have to hope the good guy ends up as the victor.

That said, international law and the UN are better than nothing. But they rely on the power of moral persuasion, rather than on the force of law.

Individual members of our forces in the Gulf have nothing to fear under international law. Good luck to them and the US forces.

[soddim]

I don't think any of our forces should visit the subject of whether or not an order to attack Iraq would be a legal order. This would open a bigger can of worms than we have already and going into action in doubt of the legal justification is not the way to go.

I would not expect Iraq in any case to treat captured personnel in accordance with the Geneva convention - they didn't last time.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I am sure the Iraqis well understand who is going to win Gulf War II. It might be worth reminding them (but probably is not necessary) that any captured aircrew should be treated iaw the Geneva Conventions or their heads will roll at the Hague.

Nevertheless the thought of one of our chapesses falling into Iraqi hands is hair-raising. Some Moslems have funny ideas about women doing what they perceive as mens' work. :(