Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Matelot, post: 8336, member: 1266"] Eagle, you said: Not strictly true. The UN charter overrules all other treaties, laws and charters, and the charter allows use of force against another country to take place in two circumstances: when covered by Article 41 (self-defence - not applicable in this case) or "specifically authorised" by Article 42 (when authorised by the UN Security Council resolution). An Article 42 action is the case in point - the USA claims that SCR 1441 authorises force - and most other countries claim it doesn't. [b]All[/b] previous Article 42 (also called Chapter VII) SCRs, from SCR 80 about the Korean War to SCR 687 about Kuwait, used unambiguous language such as "by all necessary means", or "all measures necessary". So, despite all Bush's posturing, and whatever your opinions on the causes and effects of the whole thing, there are only 2 alternatives: 1. If the US/UK go in without a further unambiguous SCR, we'd be breaking international law. 2. If the UN passes an unambiguous Article 42 SCR, then international law, and public support, would be on our side. On current form, I'm guessing we're all going to be outlaws. And as B'Liar didn't claim an Armed Forces derogation from the International Criminal Court (unlike the USA), then we're (uniquely amongst those walking across the Iraqi desert) legally liable outlaws to boot. Vote Labour... and become a War Criminal. :( [/QUOTE]