myata

Thanks for the links, but what made you leave out the last two sentences of the evaluation from the quote, I beg to ask? Could it be that they'd give a somewhat or even entirely different meaning to it? Just as reading the entirety of the report (thanks for the link again) - as I encourage everyone to do. Am I wrong to conclude from it that H.Blix was proposing a continuation of the inspection program based on the new cooperation with the Iraqi side - so, it appears, memory serves me well after all?

If a convention or agreement allows a group of countries to invade a sovereign state, I don't see why it cannot prevent from doing the same. No matter what you call it. The end result would be better, in my view - less probability of war, and in the longer term, widely accepted understanding that violence is no more acceptable in the international practice than in our everyday life.

Living in the same city I just don't see that massive and obvious show of support you're talking about. Especially in the cafes, restorants and ribbons worn on the streat. That being said, personally I don't believe that Afganistan is a lost cause just yet, but it's close (and getting closer). A solution must be found, and quickly, to these two main problems: 1) Canada (and NATO in general) should be seen by the population as only assistants to the government of Afganistan in its reconstruction efforts, not a troup of foreigners on their own mission; that would involve more than just words; and 2) Population assuming lot more positive attitude toward the government (through the latter's genuine concern and visible help to its own citizens).

First of all, we must define exactly what constitutes a war. A border trouble or conflict would probably require different approach. In a functioning framework of international security, Israel would complain to the international court about these ongoing provocations. Upon judicial consideration, the court may issue a sanction to the SC to stop provocations by applying available legal actions, e.g. assisting the government of Lebanon in enforcing border security, sanctions against it if cooperation isn't given, etc. If however, instead of seeking legal recourse, a country escalates a conflict into a war, it could itself be found liable for the crime of conducting an unwarranted war. That of course, would require the court to make determination as to whether it crossed the limits of reasonable defence.

I'm not sure if the public policy decisions should be interpreted within the same context. These decision are often (always?) made in a collective manner and most officials wouldn't accept to bear them on their conscience, nor I think it is expected or advised. But, from the individual's standpoint, the question in the both situations is the same: what material cost (to an individual) would justify thier concious decision to forego someone else's life? The only difference between the two situations seems to be the environment. I can't see why it should matter, but maybe someone thinks otherwise? The apparent paradox is that within any moral background (strictly individualistic being as good as any other), applied consistently, both situations should lead to the same decision - yet it seems that many would consider the mountain example in a more forgiving light. Is it some sort of moral "visual illusion", or there's a reason for that?

Well, my point is that the composition and procedures of the SC make it fall far short of what most people normally associate with impartial and enforceable justice in everyday life. It's more of an emergency reaction tool and it's very hard to reconcile that mission with that of serving justice. It would be like combining police and court in the same place. A proper instrument of justice on the international scene is needed.

Open aggression can still be dealt with via normal SC channels, to the extent that agressor withdraws. The rest will fall under the court's mandate to prosecute war crimes. There shouldn't be a time limit for these crimes. I'm not sure what do you mean by "secure"? The whole point of this exercise is to get away from vague terminology that can justify virtually anything by meaning essentially nothing. If nasty people behave within law you cannot "secure" them.

The court can 1) inform the country of the outstanding charges against the alledged perpetrators and request their prosecution if a law of the country allows it; 2) if prosection isn't forthcoming, request their extradition to the international courts' custody; 3) if cooperation in extradition isn't forthcoming, try them "in absentia"; 4) in case of conviction, issue international warrant for their arrest. Convicted individuals then will not be able to travel to any country signatory to the court without fear of going to jail. If sufficient number of countries signed up, the possibility of prosecution could just play some role in evaluation of optons by future Napoleons.

The thread in question is here. (I couldn't fathom to search for it in the "Federal Politics"). The example was intended to parallel the situation on the mountain, where multiple climbers walked by the dying man, apparently, without providing any help.

I recall a few months ago there was a thread about trekkers on Everest abandoning unfortunate co-traveller to certain death. Prevailing argument at the time was that 1) he brought it up himself and 2) people going there invest too much in their expeditions to risk them fail, even at a cost of human life. Here's an imaginary situation: I have a very important interview, which I worked to obtain for many months; getting into this position would completely change my future and open new horizons; not to say make a huge difference in my paycheck; also no need to say there're many other candidates, so it's critically important to be there on the first call. I spend more time than I counted on in a traffic jam and now I'm barely making it. As I turn to take a shortcut driving by a beach I see a person in distress in water (it's past the season and the beach is unsupervised). I'm a good swimmer and pretty certain that I could rescue them. However, waiting for help and all such would most likely mean I'll miss the interview. And, there's no one else in site. Are the two situations equivalent? Would I be justified to use the same argument as in the Everest case? Or saving a life should outweigh the material cost, however high it may be?

In Canada's criminal law virtually any kind of unprovoked violence by an individual against another individual is against the law. The only exception I know of is self-defence. What constitutes self defence and allowed extent of it is clearly defined. In my very limited knowledge of international law, there's a concept of "war crime" (which is also covered in the mandate of the ICC if I'm not mistaken). These, as far as my understanding goes, and in general terms mostly relate to crimes against civilian population and/or violations of conventions. War itself is still allowed as a means of international relations. What if any agression (i.e. the act of starting a war) were to be treated in the international law on the same terms as unprovoked violence in the criminal law? Those directly responsible for starting wars routinely brought to justice, e.g. through extension of the ICC's mandate to all war related matters? Would it make international relations more peaceful?

I'd call it a pipe dream.

As I said I'm not qualified to argue the legalities, and I'm not sure your evalution of the Blix's report is correct, it's not what I remember - but if only member of SC can bring an issue (including legality of a war) to its consideration, it leaves it far short of what people usually perceive as proper recourse to justice. Especially when two of the alledged perpetrators have the right of veto on any decision of the "court". I'll only repeat that absence of an international body of justice is a double edged sword - it allows Western powers still dominating the SC to pull through some of their policies - but hardly improves their image in the world. After Iraq war I'll be surprised to see the SC (if it remains in its current state) making any significant impact for a long time, its recent record (Lebanon, Iran, Darfour) confirms that.

Interesting analysis. I'd only like to comment on a few points you made. I guess only lawyers can argue that now. I wonder however, would they be able to come to any conclusion in finite time? Yes but who decides what constitutes incompliance? E.g., if I'm not mistaken, the inspection teams were running under UN auspices, not those of the "states assisting". It's hard to see how the interpretation of their findings in this case would/should be left exclusively to the "states" bypassing the SC. I doubt the SC can / does play the role effectively, but it'd probably require a separate thread to discuss. How would one bring the issue of legality of Iraq invasion to the consideration of the council though? While we can think this way here in the west, I'm not sure the rest of the world will find much consolation in this argument. Inability to execute any sort of formal justice in these cases greatly increases suspicion and resentment toward the West. I agree. And increasingly the rest of the world is beginning to see these legalistic games in the SC as yet another ploy of the West (or its part) to project its policies and influence (as seen in the ongoing drama around Iran). I wonder how much longer it has to exist as a meaningful power?

No you listed one quote related to a specific event that occured after a military coup during the WWII when countries were invaded and governments changed on the fly. By any standard it does not prove a pattern, even less so a widespread practice. Stay firmly entrenched in your view that violence justifies further violence. I've nothing to add to what I already said.

and so on... Again, you're referencing some specific and isolated incidents (military coup) in the turbulent time of WWII, far from wide spread and persistent policy against Jews in the entire arab world. I tried to follow this link, it took me to a page with general info about Iraq. There's no information about who's the author of the site. Looks like a rush job. Try better.

Dissemble much? Allright, I see you really aren't reading. Never mind.

Almost by definition of the word, "rioting" does not qualify as a state policy, unless proven to be directly instigated and guided by the state. Keep trying on that one. BTW, in case you haven't noticed (reading difficulty, I wonder?) no one here denies suffering of Jewish people at the time, in many places of the world. The point already made many times by other posters is that such suffering in itself does not justify actions causing suffering to other people. Which only spreads the waves of violence around, and for a long time. Just as we see now, 50+ years on. And, as this discussion shows, the way to resolution will be long and painful as the sins of the past will have to be admitted, and addressed by all sides.

Remarkable to observe over and againg someone's short of better argument redirecting their energy into insults. We're still waiting on the evidence of systematic and mass scale prosecution of the Jewish population by arabs in the period in question (to be precise, 1917-1948). Just to remind, invitation to provide such evidence has been given in one of the earlier posts. It wasn't missed because of reading inability, I'm sure? apologies otherwise.

Sorry, "tolerated and possibly encouraged massive foreign immigration resulting in significant change in the ethnic balance of the region AND" as per my earlier post. The rest of your rant doesn't deserve any answer.

Neverthelss, none of this negates the root cause of the problem - the way state of Israel was created. No long term settlement will be possible until the problems of the past are recognized and dealt with.

Too bad the cost of such "stewardship" (human and financial) would be such that none of this world's benefactors would be interested. Although you can try to pursuade them otherwise.

Here's only a few questions about the legitimacy of the coalitions's actions in Iraq: 1. Do a few words in a ten year old resolution serve as a proper authorisation of such a drastic measure as full scale military invasion of a sovereign state? 2. I recall that there was a big discussion as to whether the original resolution was in fact intended to be the mandate for a direct action, as opposed to a warning that such may follow in case of incompliance. Hand twisting of minor security council members by US / UK in order to obtain the second resolution only confirms these doubts. 3. Even more importantly, did the original resolution give the "states" in question the quasi-judicial power to decide what exactly constitutes incompliance and what not? 4. Finally, if the composition of the group "assisting the government of Kuwait" changed significantly over the time, that may have necessitated the renewal of the mandate. I'm sure that those aren't the only issues that can be raised, but far from being expert in the international law I wouldn't even try to argue any of them. Maybe, more qualified members of the forum can clarify some of these. However what I feel to be of critical importance, is that there were an international venue where the instigators and perpetrators of this kind of action were routinely brought to to prove, with their laywers, the legality of their actions (and suffer punishment if it were to be proven, in the court of law that they were, in fact, illegal). Otherwise, it would be seen (and already is) worldwide as yet another manifistation of West's desire to establish its rule and order and will breed scores and generations of revenge seekers. With some innocent people sometime someplace in the feature taking the punishment instead.

Rue, you made a number of interesting statements but without some kind of proof they only remain your saying that. I'm willing to change the related point in my round up of the situation to the extent that expulsion of ethnic population happened not only in the newly created state of Israel, but also in the neighbouring states. There's however a big difference between the two: one was deliberately conducted (as a policy) to ensure control by certain ethinic group. In todays language it's called ethnic cleansing and, as far as I understand, is considered a crime against humanity. Regarding the other, I'm not aware of anything other than acts of retaliation and revenge, especially anything pointing to state sponsored policy of expulsion. I you know otherwise, please share your sources of information. In any case, these events were triggered by unilateral and not entirely legitimate way the new state was created. I believe that acknowledging it now, along with offering reasonable compensation to those directly affected, would go some way toward bringing some belated sense of justice to the region. Without it (i.e., position of justice) achieving long lasting stability in the region will be a pipe dream for the long years to come.

Good information, thanks. At least I can see the logic. However, if I recall it correctly, there were many more participants in the "coalition of the willing" than those "assisting the government of Kuwait". The two just don't appear to be one and the same thing. How was that addressed?