UN chief Ban rejects call for Ivory Coast troop pullout

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by 8472AUS, Dec 19, 2010.

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. (BBC News - UN chief Ban rejects call for Ivory Coast troop pullout)

    A UN chief with balls! Now this fellow deserves some respect. Saying no to weak kneed politicians averse to casualties it pretty rare for a UN chief. Finish the task and then leave, forget the sniping.
     
  2. Hear hear. Makes a pleasant change to have a UN leader who does not appease yet another African dictator.
     
  3. On the other hand, he's setting a precedent that the UN can act without the consent, and even in opposition to the will, of the host nation. How many would be happy to have that applied closer to home?
     
  4. Iraqis and Afghans are under that experience right this second, putting aside their so-called governments. Being a government with international recognition doesn't provide legitimacy in my view. Officially it does, but I wouldn't allow the Saudi thugs in Riyadh recognition if I had a say. Nor Mugabe nor China under the CCP and so on.
     
  5. That's the only thing in international relations that does provide legitimacy. Mutual recognition is a cornerstone of the states-system.
     
  6. Yes I know. Same with the law, generally speaking.

    Not too long ago wars of aggression and even genocide were legal.........abit embarrassing, isn't it?
     
  7. No, they weren't. As soon as a body of international law came into being, 'wars of aggression and even genocide' were declared unlawful. Prior to that there was no law governing the relations between states - so they could hardly have been 'legal', could they?
     
  8. International law didn't start all of a sudden in 1945. A new chapter did, more defined, etc. So yes, aggression and genocide was legal pre-1945. A fact even the prosecutors at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials recognised, and that Axis power figures accurately deployed as justification for their crimes.
     
  9. Show me the law that said, pre-1945, "You are allowed to invade another country for no good reason". That's what 'legal' means - sanctioned by law.
     
  10. You're saying tax evaders that exploit loopholes in tax law are criminals? Law specifically declaring something is legal isn't the only requirement for it to be legal. Not banning something makes acts legal.
     
  11. Is it just me - or is an unexpected "evacuate UK nationals and entitled persons" type operation looming?
     
  12. A law specifically designating something as legal is the requirement for it to be legal - by definition. Under the common law styles of the UK's systems, an act not specifically prohibited by statute or regulation is considered lawful, which is a different thing from legal entirely.

    International law isn't solely based in UK common law, either. Our norms don't automatically apply, which is why I cautioned against turning cartwheels at the precedent being set here.
     
  13. Bit of a hollow argument IMO.

    - Gbagbo and the opposition agreed to the UN being there to monitor elections.
    - Opposition wins.
    - Gbagbo's toys go out of the pram.

    Leaving aside legalities, I believe it would be immoral for the UN to leave now - WTF do you think would happen to the opposition and their supporters if they did so?
     
  14. I just missed the 4:00PM news, but there was something about the FCO advising against travel to the Ivory Coats. Nothing on Aunty Beeb yet.
     
  15. My friends Dad works in one of the big mining operations out there, they're still holed up under armed guard, no word on when or if they'll be evacuated.