Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - George Tenet's New Book: Is US in Iraq Similar "Aggressive War" Charged at Nuremberg

dc_dux · 04-28-2007, 08:39 PM

Mike...many international law experts would argue that the US invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter, specificially articles 41 and 42.

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.

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, (ie if Iraq did not comply fully with 1441) 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.

1441 states specifically that it is "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations" which includes articles 41 and 42

Here is the sequence that should have been followed to comply with the UN Charter, under which 1441 was acting:

Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict (ie 1441) should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success (ie a new resolution) , whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote by the Security Council to mandate use of force.

The US and UK knew this and initially submitted a resolution that would have triggered article 42....when they didnt have the votes on the Security Council, they withdrew the resolution and declared unilaterally that they had the authority to use force under 1441.

I dont claim to be an expert on international law, but its seems pretty clear to me that the US/UK violated the UN Charter. Perhaps you can explain how they complied with article 42?

04-28-2007, 08:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Mike...many international law experts would argue that the US invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter, specificially articles 41 and 42. 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. Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, *(ie if Iraq did not comply fully with 1441)* 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. 1441 states specifically that it is "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations" which includes articles 41 and 42 Here is the sequence that should have been followed to comply with the UN Charter, under which 1441 was acting: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict (ie 1441) should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success (ie a new resolution) , whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote by the Security Council to mandate use of force. The US and UK knew this and initially submitted a resolution that would have triggered article 42....when they didnt have the votes on the Security Council, they withdrew the resolution and declared unilaterally that they had the authority to use force under 1441. I dont claim to be an expert on international law, but its seems pretty clear to me that the US/UK violated the UN Charter. Perhaps you can explain how they complied with article 42? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-28-2007 at 09:40 PM..