Actually Dragonlich, 4thTimeLucky made an excellent explanation of how the common law and international legal system works.
You seem to be arguing that since 1441 was vague it could be interpreted in at least two different ways--both valid depending on one's point of view.
That assertion does not square with what occurred--although it is being used now to justify the action.
The discussion wasn't about whether "serious measures" meant war. The charter explicitly stated that the UN counsel would determine if Iraq was in breach and what course to take in that event.
The US contention became that, despite the wording of the charter, the threat was so imminent that we had to act immediately. Furthermore, since the threat was to our national security we no longer needed UN approval to act.
Thus, we were not acting under the charter but the doctrine that a nation has a right to defend itself--the discussion became whether a nation has a right to defend itself before an act of aggression occurs (based on the mere threat of aggression, regardless of how big that threat may be)--which became a discussion of how a doctrine of pre-emption reversed our government's notions of foreign policy during the past 50 years.
At the very end people began to question that logic heavily--which spawned the argument that, in any case, the charter says that failure of full compliance would result in serious consequences. Since they were in breach (according to the US view), and the UN was not acting (that is, deciding the serious action, according the the US vew), then the UN was irrelevant.
Which brings us to this thread. Since the whole invasion was predicated upon the claim that we did not need UN approval because our national security was at stake, the emergence of evidence stating that our national security was not really at stake could undermine the legality of the attack.
|