A parliament binding a subsequent parliament.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Nehustan, Oct 15, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    The concept that one parliament can bind a subsequent parliament is an idea opposed by the British democratic model. I bring up this point in relation to the current Iran situation and the NPT. The USA keep stating that Iran's Islamic Republic is in breach of the 1968 NPT, but as the Islamic Revolution occured in 1979, it is fair to say that the Islamic Republic of Iran never signed the treaty, and if we follow the cited democratic principle, it is not bound by the agreements of the Shah. It is interesting that the US cites that Iran has no need of atomic power given their wealth of natural fossil fuels. This didn't stop them assist the Shah with his aspiration with MIT even training Nuclear scientists. I guess we must wait for John Scarlett to provide a 45 minute claim (or some other claim, probably better substantiated, it would have to be, once bitten etc.), and off will go the troops.
  2. The British view has always been that "Parliament can do anything except turn a man into a woman" (apologies, I can't remember who this quote should be credited to) and the German concept of kriegsraison is that any German government can ignore the terms of any treaty that Germany is a signatory of if the terms of that treaty are deemed to threaten the survival of the German state.

    My feelings regarding international law has always been that treaties only survive due to the goodwill of the signatory countries.
  3. I'm not sure about Iran, but Russia has stated that it has assumed the rights and obligations of the Soviet Union under the NPT. Iran may well have done the same - I'm not sure. In any case, it's largely irrelevant - Iran has the right to leave the NPT at any time by simply giving 1 months notice and citing "supreme national interests". There is no requirement as to what these interests must be.
  4. It is not clear to me how Iran has violated the NPT in any event.

    NPT doesn't textually prohibit acquisition of gas centrifuge equipment or the production of enriched uranium as such; it prohibits the production of nuclear weapons.