sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:With other words, you are propagandising the "might of the strongest".
You decide what is the definitive truth and the correct form of government.
You decide which nation is good and which nation is bad.
You decide which nation is entitled to certain rights (e.g. the right to have superior fire power) and which nation are to be combated.
If as people we can't determine good from bad than we deserve to wiped out and replaced. I champion freedom and liberty. You champion...?
- That assumes that it is possible at all to determine good from bad. Can you prove that it is possible? Prove that there are things that are recognised ultimately as bad and things that are recognised ultimately as good. Considering that you have already referred to Nihilism, that should be interesting.
- I champion the idea that every peoples can self determine what they champion
- - as long as they let other peoples do it as well.
- I champion the idea that there is no natural right, no absolute right and wrong.
- I champion the idea that every peoples can have their own opinion of what is right and wrong, considering their history
- - as long as they do not think that it is right to foist their opinion on other peoples.
- I champion the idea that democracy (to a certain extent) is the right for the German peoples.
- I champion the idea that democracy is not automatically the right for all peoples on the world.
- I champion the idea that peoples who wants democracy have to fight for it to value it.
- I champion the idea that for the German peoples freedom is to be granted, but not limitless and that the freedom of one stops where the rights of another begins.
- I champion the idea that for the German peoples liberty is to be granted, but not limitless and that the liberty of one stops where the rights of another begins.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:An interesting claim. But its not substantiated. Why is superior fire power the only way to maintain peace? I have always thought that during the Cold War peace was maintained because no side had have superior fire power.
And who decides who has the superior morality? You?
- If we had superior firepower thier wouldn't have been a cold war, half of europe wouldn't have been abandoned for fifty odd years, and the world would have been a better place.
- The countries that could conqure but choose not too would be a good starting point. China and Russia for example would really like to expand thier terriroty but are hampered by outside factors.
- Correct: if you would have hed superior fire power there wouldn't have been a Cold War. There would have been a Third World War. Millions would have died.
The war may have ended with the occupation of Europe and Asian through the USA. The of you championed freedom and liberty of many peoples would have ended. The self-determination of peoples would have ended. You would have dictated how they are supposed to live.
- Can you prove it. Honestly, you are claiming things about the rest of the world that, if it would be true, would make them all barbarians. Is this really your opinion? That the rest of the world is barbarian and only the USA ist civilised? Can you prove it?
Because, as far as I can see, the USA is not better. It is a nation that not only has enough WMDs to extinct mankind several times, but the first and only nation who has used nuclear weapons against humans - two times. It's also the biggest seller of weapons and it sells its weapons to what you would call the most evil regimes in the world. At the same time, it is the nation with the most out of area military operations since 1950. Some of them, but only the absolute minority, were humanitarian operations. It supports, what you would call the most evil regimes in the world as long as the attitude of their dictators are beneficial for American interests. It sabotage democratic gouvernments if they have an attitude that is adverse for American interests.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:In what way shows the example of Nazi Germany vs. Great Britain that nations are not equal? What has the one to do with the other?
And who says which nations are allowed to have greater fire power? You?
It's simple. The United Kingdom has nukes. Do you want a country like Nazi Germany to have nukes? If both are equal, if both viewpoints and thoughts are morally the same than you should have no qualms.
- During the World War II, neither Great Britain nor Germany has had nukes.
- If both nations would have had nukes, World War II would probably not have happened because it would have resulted in mutually destruction.
- Germany of today is not Great Britain.
- I do not want that Germany, neither the Germany from today nor Nazi Germany, has nuclear weapons. But I also do not want that Great Britain or any other nation has nuclear weapons.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:Regarding Iran, which behaviour should be considered? Iran has, contrary to the USA, not attacked another nation. Please take note of that fact.
Cheating on an election, supressing it's own people, funding terroism. The fact that the USA has fought wars for it's survival are irrevelent to this discussion WILGA.
- Cheating on an election is an internal affair.
- Besides, do you have any prove that it was cheated? The opposition is claiming it. But do they have any proof? (I do not say that it was not cheated. But I do also not say that it was cheated. Because I have no evidence for the one or other possibility.)
- Suppressing it's own people is also an internal affair. If the Iranian peoples are really wanting democracy, they have to fight for it and have to pay with blood to value it. It can not be donated because such a democracy will not endure.
- Besides, the suppressing of it's own people has started after the last intervention of the USA in 1953, when the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was deposed.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:And to equate Iran with Nazi Germany is an insult for the victims of the latter. Iran has done nothing that could be equated with the things, Nazi Germany has done.
The key point however is yet. Something tells me the current regime does not harbor pleasent thoughts concerning Israel. However it was an example of a bad nation, would using the Soviets feel better to you?, I was not directly comparing the two nations at that moment in time.
- I have no doubt that the current regime does not harbour pleasant thoughts concerning Israel. And? The current regime in the USA does not harbour pleasant thoughts concerning Iran or North Korea.
As long as Iran does not attack Israel or prepares an attack, it can think what it wants.
- Bad nation? It's again you, who decides what a bad nation is?
- I'm not sure that I understand what you have wanted to accomplish with your argument.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:I do not believe that if I'm nice to all others, all others are nice to me. I have never insinuated such a thing. Even if you are nice to others, they can be not nice to you. But fact is, that if you are not nice to others, they will not be nice to you.
And it is again an interesting claim that they are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness. But its not substantiated. Why do you think such thing? Fact is that neither Iran nor North Korea have, contrary to the USA, attacked another nation. What's your evidence thatthe people of Iran or the people of North Korea are blood thirsty killers who pounce on weakness.
Why do you think that I would be dead if the USA would not wage wars worldwide? Germany is ready to defend them self if it is attacked. It has shown in history that it is a force to be reckoned with. To attack Germany would be stupid. But nobody wants to attack Germany and it does not need the USA to defend it from someone who does not want to attack it.
- Actually being cruel and abusive to other nations grants you total power. The Soviets didn't get a lot of backlash from the Warsaw group nor did Atilla want for brides, gold or power. No one crosses the big dude who isn't afraid to kill.
- Iran: Sponsors terroism. N. Korea: Korean war.
- Germany spends 1% of GDP on it's miltary. On the real world scale it's an insect. Russia, a nearby nation which a hankering for it's old Soviet empire, would squash just like one as well. Then of course the fact that without our help Germany would be part of the Soviet empire period and than the annual crisises which the US military is first responders too bringing food and medical. When Germany can usurp America's job you can talk until than I'd stay quiet on the military front.
- Being cruel and abusive to other nations grants not total power. You have to have total power or at least be stronger than the nations you are being cruel and abusive to. But you don't honestly want to argue that being cruel and abusive to other nations is - according to the American legal principles - right, do you?
- Do you have any prove that Iran sponsors terrorism?
Correct is that Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army. But it does not view these groups as terrorist. If we continue that path, we will soon argue what's the difference between a terroristic group and freedom fighters or resistance fighters. Considering that a 1988 study by the United States Army found that there are over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism†and that the concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them, that would be a very controversial debate.
- The Korean war has started 1950 and an armistice was signed 1953. Why is this war supposed to have any relevance in this debate?
- 1% of the German GDP is still more than what most other nations have. Fact is that Germany has the sixth largest defence spending. Only the USA, UK, France, China and Japan have higher defence spendings. And now look what the USA with all its defence spendings can do. It is not able to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq. Now imagine what would happen if USA would attack Germany. Yes, maybe it would win a war. But it would get a very bloody nose.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:I have never said that I want to disarm Germany. Why do you ignore that part of my last post:
- Yes, there are things that are worthy fighting for.
If my own nation is unjustified attacked, I think it is worth fighting to defend it.
If another nation is unjustified attacked by a third nation, I think it is worth fighting to defend the attacked nation.
And here it ends. Fighting to defend something is ok. Fighting to attack something is not ok.
It's the same in my private life. I fight to defend myself and others when authoritarian help is not available. I never fight because I want something another possess or because another has a different opinion or life style I do not like.
I'm not showing weakness because I don't behave like a bully. Who thinks that and thinks that I would allow an attack on me or another, will very fast get a nasty surprise.
Maybe not disarm in the literal sense but you want to act nice and friendly towards people who want to kill us. I'd suggest putting enough firepower on thier border and telling them to drop the nuke program.
No. I do not want to act nice and friendly towards people who want to kill us. But I do not want to attack people, regardless of their opinions, as long as they do not attack me or another nation or are preparing an attack on me or on another nation. I have not only the choice between be nice and friendly or attack them. There are other ways too.
And as I have said already: to threat them will only make them more determined to get nuclear weapons. And sooner or later they will get them. You simply can't put enough fire power on the borders of each nation and the more you are threatening other nations and ignoring international law, the more nations will get determined to get nuclear weapons as a guarantee for their sovereignty.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:I'm not saying that the UN is perfect. Humans are working there and these humans are deliberately and undeliberately making mistakes. But that is not an institutional flaw. It's the same problem each other organisation has too. Or do you think that the US President should be abolished because of the Watergate scandal or the Lewinsky scandal?
- Funny you had no such qualms regarding America. YOu thought it was super corrupt but the UN is excused after it has done some pretty hienes crimes.
- 2. You cite two examples roughly three decades apart that involved either a lying president or a lying or a small cabal of people. I'm talking about a system wide corruptioin which far worse consequences than either two examples you cited. UN peacekeepers have a nasty tendency to take advantage of the people they are supposed to help.
- Yes, what the USA is doing is official policy. What has happened in the UN was the fatuities of a few and not official policy. After it become public, it was investigated and prosecuted. That's the difference between official policy to the USA.
And which "pretty hienes crimes" has the UN done? The UN as an organisation and not a few employees of the UN.
- Prove it! Give examples! Show that it is really a system wide corruption and not only the fatuities of a few. Show that UN peacekeepers have a nasty tendency to take advantage of the people they are supposed to help. Not only a single example. If it is supposed to be a nasty tendency, you have to show that it happens almost every time.
Do not misunderstand me. I know that the UN is not perfect. I would make many changes if I could. But it I see nothing and know from nothing that would show that it is as bad as you claim.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:The UN is not an organisation from and for the USA. It's an international organisation from and for all nations. It's not the goal of the UN to enforce the US goals.
And to allow China and Soviet Union (Russia existed again only after 1990) into the security council was the only way that the UN could have worked at all. I recommend that you read something about the failings of the League of Nations.
- What is the purpose of the UN. Why does it exist? For the kind of souless peace where we turn a blind eye while the Soviets starve thier own people or to build a better world were a woman in the middle east isn't stoned to death for being raped. I prefer nations that share that world building goal as opposed to pointless bickering and wasting money.
- I was refering to Russia which still holds a place on the security council, through of course we never should have let the Soviets on either. They will never agree with us, they follow a very impertilistic goal. If we have nothing in common, no shared goals what will be accomplished?
- The Purposes of the United Nations are - according to Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations:
- To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
If you would be really interested in policy and the UN, you could have found that yourself.
It's not the goal of the UN to say other peoples how they have to life. It's not the goal of the UN to spread the American way of life. It's not the goal of the UN to enforce American interests. And it's not the goal of the UN to form a kind of planetary government or to unite all nations in a kind of federal state or confederation.
I do not like the fact that women are stoned to death. But as the women of our nations have fight for their emancipation, the women of other cultures have to do it themself. It will never be accepted and will never endure if you impose such values on them.
Especially if the USA does not has any credibility regarding such an issue. After all, woman suffrage was only incorporated into the United States Constitution 1920.
- The UN would not have worked if the Soviet Union would not have become a permanent member of the security council. It's as easy as that. Have you read something about the failings of the League of Nations?
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:Who says that you are the police? Who has made you to the police?
And even if I would accept that you are the police, there would still have to be a legislative and a judiciary. Are you that too? Does this mean that you alone can enact binding legislation, decide, who has violated them, execute them and decide, if one has violated them, how to punish them and execute the punishment? As far as I know, that violates even American legal principles.
And why would the police need nuclear weapons? Do you want to fight the bad guys with nuclear weapons?
- We were made the police when no one else decided to step up for freedom. No one wanted to fight the cold war, everyone wanted to be nice to the Soviets, be friends. They wanted to show them that we could be friends. Which in itself makes me believe humanity is suicidal by nature.
- It's called a metaphor. We are not literaly police, we don't even have a super sized giant badge, but we are for better or worse the closet thing this planet has to protectors. Check this planet's roster. The only other nations that can come close to what we possese in projection ability tend to be of the authoratian mind set. China crushes it's own people beneath tanks, do you really think they wouldn't do something similar to you if given the chance?
- The police need to be as armed as the villians they fight. Nukes are just one more weapon in our arsenal.
- You have claimed to be the world police. But there was and is not such a position in the first place that you could usurp it at all.
And you were allied with the Soviets and with China during the World War II. But you have very quickly accomplished it to alienate both nations with your arrogance.
And you have not fought the Soviets during the Cold War. That's why it is called Cold War and not a World War III.
- I know what's a metaphor is. But my points stands. The USA arrogates the position of legislative, executive and judiciary. It wants to decide what is wrong and what is right. It wants to decide which nation is doing something wrong and which nation is doing something right. I wants to decide which nation it to be punished and which nation is not to be punished. And it wants to decide what the punishment has to entail. The USA does not seek consensus with the 192 other nations of this planet because it is so arrogant that it thinks it knows what is the best for all. On a national level, such an attitude would be called dictatorship.
- Why do you claim now that the USA is the closet thing this planet has to protectors. Do you protect the planet? Against what? Who wants you as a protector? Really, the most people on this Earth are hating the USA. You have seen the people in TV burning a US flag? They neither do want you as a police nor as a protector.
Let me quote something I have alread written in another thread:
- BBC World Service poll:
- The BBC has been tracking opinions about countries’ influence in the world over three years (2005 – 2007). During that time most ratings have remained relatively stable. There has been improvement in ratings of India, a slight decline in views about Britain and a significant fall in positive evaluations of the United States. Russia, China, and France also lost ground over the period, mainly between 2005 and 2006.
Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, commented: “It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power. This includes Israel and the US, who have recently used military force, and North Korea and Iran, who are perceived as trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
“Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like Japan, France, and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively,†he added.
As reported earlier, worldviews of the United States continue to worsen, with most countries having a largely negative view of the US. Across all 27 countries polled (excluding the US self-evaluation), half (51%) now say the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world. However, among the countries that receive large negative evaluations, the US has the
largest percentage—30 percent—saying it has a positive influence.
Across the 19 countries that have been polled for the last three years the average percentage saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world has dropped six points from a year ago after having dropped four points from the previous year.
Among the 26 countries polled this time (excluding the US), in 20 the most common view of the United States’ influence was negative, whin just four it was mainly positive and two were evenly divided. Negative views are particularly widespread in Europe (especially Greece 78%, Germany 74%, and France 69%) predominantly Muslim countries (Indonesia 71%, Turkey 69%, Eg59%, and Lebanon 58%). The only countries with positive majorities arefound in Africa (Nigeria 72%, and Kenya 70%), and the Philippines (72%).
Some of the sharpest drops in positive ratings over the last year came from four countries that have tended to be quite positive about the United States. Poland’s positive ratings dropped 24 points, from 62 percent a year ago to 38 percent today. The Philippines dropped 13 points, from a very high 85 percent to a still-high 72 percent. India fell from 44 percent to 30 percent. And Indonesia plunged 19 points—from 40 percent to 21 percent positive—perhaps due to the waning of the positive effect of the American aid to Indonesian tsunami victims.
Additionally, the number of American respondents who believe the United States is having a positive influence in the world has also decreased six points, from 63% to 57%, and has dropped a total of fourteen points (from 71%) from 2005.
How does that come?
Why do even nations - like Canada or these in Europe - which have no direct disadvantages from the U.S. exploits - nations which were and are allied with the U.S. - nations which owe the U.S. very much - have now an increasing bad opinion of the U.S.?
That has to have a reason.
And that reason is not that the whole world but the U.S. is stupid and that they all aren't able to see what great things the U.S. are doing.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:9/11 was a crime of a criminal international organisation - not a military attack of another nation. The Taliban or Afghanistan has had nothing to do with that attack.
And even if one would consider 9/11 as an attack, it was over. No further attacks were imminent. That's where the right of self-defence ends.
Your international organization had assets in various nations. We went after a few. I fail to see how you can consider paramilitary jihadists a criminal organization, through they traffic in crime as well, but that is beside the point on this score. My main beef is that we were attacked and you seem to believe we should have simply stayed on the defensive just waiting to see what else those guys might throw at us. I wonder if you would feel the same if someone attacked your nation.
That was already debated in the thread
War crimes by US troops.
What you have done is not considered self defence any more. Your right for self-defence is over when the attack is over. Self-defence is only to ward off an attack. It's not a justification to do what you have wanted to do a long time ago if it goes farther than it is necessary to ward off an attack.
- Self-defense:
Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met.
The concept of what is imminent may depend on the circumstances. Different considerations may apply, for example, where the risk is of attack from terrorists sponsored or harboured by a particular State, or where there is a threat of an attack by nuclear weapons.
However there must be some degree of imminence.
The USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. That means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack.
But that is not a doctrine which exists or is recognised in international law.
There is an article in which a legal opinion is presented, which is similar to my own legal opinion, I have made 2001.
To be honest - this legal opinion - although in its entirety exhaustive - is a little bit soft in its conclusion. I would have used more clearly words. But that is a plublication in a distinguished Journal and I can understand that one has to be a little bit considerate.
But the advantage of these legal opinion is that it is already in English. That's why I post it.
I recommend that you read it and try to understand it.
- The Right of Self-Defence and The "War on Terrorism" One Year after September 11
By Kirsten Schmalenbach
SPECIAL FORUM ISSUE: THE WORLD WE (INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS) ARE IN: LAW AND POLITICS ONE YEAR AFTER 9/11.
A. Introduction: International Terrorism
[1]
The destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon by three highjacked civilian airliners and the crash of a fourth in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 constitute without a doubt the high point of terrorist attacks on the United States to date. The terrorists' methods, their destructive force and the attacks' economic and political effects are all without precedent. After September 11, the organisation responsible was quickly identified, namely a terrorist group based in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, headed by a Saudi expatriate, Osama bin Laden. After a request for his extradition was denied by the ruling Taliban, the United States and the United Kingdom conducted airstrikes against targets in Afghanistan beginning on October 7. As soon as late November 2001, the Taliban's fate was sealed. The uninterrupted bombardment of the US Air Force helped the Northern Alliance gain decisive ground in its campaign against the regime. On December 15, 2001, the various Afghan opposition groups signed a treaty on the Petersberg near Bonn, Germany, that established an interim government. The government's establishment put an end to the Taliban's rule, but it did not put an end to international terrorism with its various goals and interwoven structures.
[2]
While the attacks of September 11 may in some respects be exceptional, as an incident of international terrorism per se they are the latest in a long series. (1) The previous engagement of the United States in the Middle East had already led to the targeting of US institutions and citizens by terrorists. In 1986, a bomb exploded in a West Berlin night-club that predominantly catered to US soldiers. Citing the right of self-defence, the United States reacted with airstrikes on the Libyan capital, Tripoli. On December 21, 1988, the destruction of a PanAm flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie resulted in the deaths of 259 passengers and 11 inhabitants. The suspects, two Libyan citizens, were tried under United Nations (UN) supervision in the Netherlands before a Scottish court. (2) The Lockerbie case is a well known but rare example of international co-operation in the non-violent fight against international terrorism.
[3]
The military operation to free Kuwait in 1990 by a US-led alliance resulted in further terrorist attacks, including an assassination attempt on former US President George Bush Sr. in 1993 in Kuwait. The United States again relied on its right to self-defence and conducted airstrikes against the Iraqi Secret Service's headquarters in Baghdad. (3) The continued presence of US soldiers near Islam's holy sites led to the perception by Muslim fundamentalists of the United States as the chief enemy of Islam. The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 were the next target of attacks, which killed 254 people and injured well over 5000. Their bombing also served to introduce bin Laden (multi-millionaire and fundamentalist on a private mission) as the public face of international terrorism. The US reaction was in keeping with its past practice. On August 20, 1998, US cruise missiles destroyed six alleged bases of bin Laden in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. (4) In these cases, as in the previous ones, the United States justified its armed intervention as an act of self-defence. (5)
B. The Traditional Concepts of "Use of Force" and "Self-Defence" in International Law
[4]
The use of force by the United States in response to terrorist attacks prior to and including September 11, 2001 is primarily subject to the norms of international law. A state attacked by terrorists may politically be in an extraordinary position yet its selection of countermeasures is not outside the law. In such a situation, national law usually proves capable of prompt and flexible reactions. In comparison, the norms of international law are relatively static. The prohibition of the use of force in international relations with its limited exceptions serves as a telling example.
[5]
Since at least the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the international legal system has been dominated by an explicit prohibition of the use of force, namely Article 2[4] UN Charter. This central norm of the UN Charter and its equivalent in customary international law strictly prohibits states from using force of a military nature, even if the government of a state has not been internationally recognized, as was the case with Afghanistan. This interpretation of Article 2[4] UN Charter is undisputed; the controversy concerns the exceptions, specifically the circumstances in which the right of self-defence according to Article 51 UN Charter may be exercised.
[6]
Self-defence per Article 51 UN Charter, which is emphasised as an "inherent right", requires an armed attack upon a state. Three constitutive elements of the term "armed attack" present difficulties in characterising the use of force as self-defence in accordance with international law, especially in response to terrorism. Self-defence against a terrorist attack requires, according to the traditional concept of Article 51 UN Charter, that the terrorist attack be carried out as an ‘act of a state', which means that it must be attributable to a state. (6) In addition, the attack in question has to be comparable to inter-state combat in its scale and effects. Lastly, Article 51 UN Charter requires that the armed attack has not ended but is ongoing when the right of self-defence is exercised.
[7]
Even if Article 51 UN-Charter does not explicitly limit self-defence to armed attacks by a state, this reading is supported by the UN Charter's concept and the law of nations in general. (7) In the context of Article 2[4] UN Charter, self-defence is an exception to the prohibition of the use of force in inter-state relations. A state is allowed to rely on self-defence if it is affected by another state's unlawful use of force. The crucial point in the context of Article 51 UN Charter is that defence measures of an attacked state affects, in the majority of cases, the territorial integrity of another state. If a state is attacked by private individuals located on the high seas or in a plane above the high seas, the attacked state has the right to launch armed countermeasures without being in danger of conflicting with Article 2[4] UN Charter. In this case, the attacked state can rely on its unlimited sovereignty; recourse to Article 51 is not required. However, there might be a scenario which calls for a different legal perspective. If terrorists are based in a territory without effective governance (failed state), state practice may support the application of Article 51 UN Charter in favour of the attacked state. This means of course that a failed state is in principle under the protection of Article 2[4] UN Charter. Yet, Afghanistan was far from lacking governmental authority. The Taliban had ruled 90 % of the territory in a very effective manner; therefore it cannot be categorised as a failed state. Consequently, the right of self-defence on the grounds of Article 51 UN Charter required an armed attack against the United States attributable to Afghanistan.
[8] With regard to the attribution of acts and omissions to a state, international law possesses relatively stable rules. The basic rule is that the conduct of state organs acting in their official capacity is attributed to the state concerned. Organs of the state comprise all persons who fulfil legislative, executive or judicial functions within the state. (9) Difficulty in determining the attributability of conduct begins with persons lacking formal appointment who act in some connection with the state. Here the concept of the "de facto organ" enters the scenario. The de facto organ is characterised in draft article 8 on state responsibility (2001) as a person "… in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that state in carrying out the conduct." (10)
[9]
As noted in draft article 8 on state responsibility (2001), the key elements of attribution are instruction, direction and control. Explicit or implied instruction between the militant occupants of the US embassy in Tehran and the Iranian government was lacking, according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case "United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran". (11) The ICJ refined its criteria for attribution in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. The Court underlined the importance of the element of effective state control of the specific paramilitary operation in the course of which the alleged violation of international law was committed. (12) The Nicaragua judgement's high threshold for the attribution of the conduct of paramilitary groups was in turn criticised by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in its Tadic judgement of July 15, 1999. (13) Citing statements by the US-Mexican Claims Commission (14), the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (15) and the European Court of Human Rights (16), the Yugoslavia Tribunal noted that international law does not require the same degree of state control in order for individuals to qualify as de facto organs. "In order to attribute the acts of a military or paramilitary group to a State, it must be proved that the State wields overall control over the group, not only by equipping and financing the group, but also by co-ordinating or helping in the general planning of its military activity. Only then can the State be held internationally accountable for any misconduct of the group." (17) In contrast, where a state merely acknowledges the factual existence of a private individual's conduct or condones that conduct, the attribution of that conduct to the state has no basis in traditional international law. (18)
[10]
The second requirement of Article 51 UN Charter concerns the scale and effects of the armed attack. Even if Article 51 UN Charter does not explicitly state that the attack in question must be of a certain intensity for it to qualify as an armed attack, the criteria "scale" and "effects" are largely undisputed. The corresponding international practice is reflected in the UN General Assembly's Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974. (19) Article 3(g) of the relevant resolution states that "[a]ny of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall (...) qualify as an act of aggression: (...) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein." The General Assembly's definition is substantively related to Article 39 UN Charter and was cited by the ICJ in the Nicaragua case in its interpretation of the right of self-defence. The judgement reads: "The Court sees no reason to deny that, in customary law, the prohibition of armed attacks may apply to the sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of another State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack rather than as a mere frontier incident had it been carried out by regular armed forces." (20) The discretion offered by the requirement of scale and effects can pose a serious problem in deciding on a military response to acts of terrorism. How many victims must suffer in the terrorist attack, and how many terrorists must take part in order for the attack to be comparable to an attack by regular armed forces?
[11]
Lastly, the requirement of immediacy between armed attack and force used in self-defence can be founded on the wording of Article 51 UN Charter ("if an armed attack occurs"). If an attack has ceased and there is no danger of further attack, the right of self-defence itself ceases. (21) Repressive measures by military means are generally prohibited in international relations. (22) The "Friendly Relations Declaration" adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in 1970 reads: "States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force." (23) If, however, the attack in question consists of several successive acts, the requirement of immediacy becomes problematic and would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. (24) ‘Hit-and-run' terrorist attacks, in which the terrorists wait for a period of time before striking again, are a favourite tactic of Al Qaeda: three years passed between the attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
C. Combating the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan
[12]
After September 11 and before targeting Afghanistan, the United States cited its right to self-defence in justifying its military actions to the community of states and the UN. This is especially noteworthy since the UN Security Council (SC) had apparently been willing to permit the use of force on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter: "The Security Council (...) expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations." (25) In the event, the United States decided against taking up this offer, opting instead for its right to self-defence. There may be various reasons for this decision. First, a SC mandate that in time and content would have limited the US's freedom of action could thereby be avoided. (26) Moreover, reliance on Article 51 UN Charter is consistent with past US counter-terrorism policy, though this policy did in the case of September 11 meet with the approval of the community of states and the UN. In both Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373 concerning the September 11 attacks, the SC recognised that there is an "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter." (27)
[13]
The legal significance of the passage cited, which was without a doubt included in the SC-Resolutions at the request of the United States, is limited. The right of self-defence is an original right of states that has neither been granted nor limited by the UN ("inherent right"). The SC does not therefore have the competence to grant a constitutive right of self-defence to any state. (28) Nevertheless, mention of the right of self-defence by the SC is not completely insignificant. It declares that an armed attack by the United States on Afghanistan – the base of bin Laden and his organisation – does not violate Article 2[4] UN Charter and does not constitute a breach of international security according to Article 39 UN Charter. Moreover, it mirrors the consensus among the vast majority of states that the US countermeasure is in accordance with international law. (29) This consensus is underlined by the decision of the North Atlantic Council of September 12, 2001. "The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." (30) A similar decision was reached by the signatories to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (31) in accordance with its Article 3. (32)
[14]
The almost unanimous consensus of states effects the interpretation of the right of self-defence in customary law, to which Article 51 UN Charter is related. The way in which the traditional limits on self-defence have been handled in this case suggests that Article 51 UN Charter has been extended.
[15]
Affirming the existence of an armed attack on the United States according to Article 51 UN Charter presents no difficulty. Scholars have favoured drawing parallels to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, an attack that resulted in less loss of life than September 11. (33)
[16]
With regard to the requirement that an attack be ongoing a certain shift in international practice can be detected. It lies in the nature of hit-and-run terrorist attacks that armed countermeasures of the attacked state are either too late (reprisal) or too early (pre-emptive strike). Previously states had only accepted pre-emptive strikes against objectively imminent armed attacks. (34) The mere feeling of being under threat was not sufficient justification. (35) Events after September 11 suggest, however, that if a terrorist attack can be qualified as an armed attack according to Article 51 UN Charter, and if there is no doubt about the terrorists' willingness to continue their ‘combat' after a tactical break, the use of force to prevent further attacks is now included in the right of self-defence. (36)
[17]
The main legal issue regarding the war in Afghanistan concerns the attribution of "private" acts of terrorism to a state (i.e. de facto organ). The argument that the US armed intervention could be aimed exclusively against the "private" organisation Al Qaeda does not stand in international law, because the integrity of the territory of Afghanistan was inevitably affected (refer para. 7). Moreover, the US offensive was not limited to the elimination of Al Qaeda. It also was targeted at the Taliban regime whose overthrow was achieved. (37) This last-mentioned goal of the US airstrikes was not criticised by other states.
[18]
It is most striking that the United States did not even attempt to identify effective control – i.e. the power of command – of the Taliban over Al Qaeda. The US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, John Negroponte, summarised his government's legal understanding after the start of the US military offensive against Afghanistan: "The attacks of 11 September 2001 and the ongoing threat to the United States and its nationals posed by the Al Qaeda organization have been made possible by the decision of the Taliban regime to allow parts of Afghanistan that it controls to be used by this organization as a base of operation." (38) This argument has been accepted by other states.
[19]
When viewed in isolation, the Afghanistan case sends a clear massage: The prerequisites for the right to rely on self-defence are toleration and provision of a safe haven for terrorists by a state. It is less clear where such factors impact the interpretation of Article 51 UN Charter.
[20]
One possible reading is that the attribution of the terrorists' armed attack to the state is no longer required. Instead, the violation of the pre-existing obligation in international law not to harbour terrorists now supports the right of self-defence. Another possible reading is that state practice following September 11 merely leads to the lowering of the threshold for the attribution of private conduct to the harbouring state. Such attribution no longer requires active support and planning of terrorist activities; instead, it is sufficient for a state to allow terrorists to use its territory as a base of their transborder operations.
[21]
The first reading will raise a variety of legal issues in future cases. Does the right of self-defence remain unaffected if the harbouring State agrees to prosecute the terrorists? There is no general legal principle in international law requiring the extradition of terrorists (aut dedere aut judicare). In the case of Lockerbie, Libya's obligation to extradite was based on an enforcement measure of the SC pursuant to Chapter VII UN Charter. (39) Moreover, does the right of self-defence remain unaffected if the harbouring state's sentencing does not meet the attacked state's expectations? In order to avoid these problematic issues, the second reading of the recent state practice – i.e. the lowering of the threshold for the attribution of private conduct – seems preferable even though it presents its own risks. At least it can be said that the lowering of the threshold for the attribution follows a trend in international law, which the divergence of the ICTY's holding in Tadic from the ICJ's in Nicaragua illustrates. Over the long term, both the first and the second readings of Article 51 UN Charter undermine the sensitive balance between the territorial integrity, prohibition of the use of force, the right of self-defence and the authority of the Security Council to launch enforcement measures against harbouring states pursuant to Chapter VII UN Charter.
D. Conclusion
[22]
The broad international approval of the war in Afghanistan without a doubt reflects the magnitude of the tragedy of September 11. The recent consensus regarding the right of self-defence presents, however, several legal difficulties. Does it constitute a singular event or will future state practice confirm the generously interpreted right of self-defence? The risks inherent in lowering of the requirements in Article 51 UN Charter through state practice are obvious. States will soon find themselves in the role of Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice if the fight against terrorism is taken to justify the means and the right of self-defence is degraded to a general authorisation of the use of force. (40) The significance of a generous interpretation of Article 51 UN Charter has been indicated by the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations on October 7, 2001. "We may find that our self-defence requires further action with respect to other organizations and other states." (41)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (1) See Kirsten Schmalenbach, Der internationale Terrorismus, Ein Definitionsversuch, 42 NZWehrr 15 (2000).
(2) See Responding to Terrorism: Crime, Punishment, and War, 115 Harvard Law Review, 1217, 1218 (2002).
(3) UN Doc. S/PV 3245, p. 3 et seq. (27 June 1993).
(4) See Kirsten Schmalenbach, Die Beurteilung von grenzüberschreitenden Militäreinsätzen gegen den internationalen Terrorismus aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht, 42 NZWehrr 177 (2000).
(5) C. Wilson (USA), Sixth Committee, Opening Debate on Draft Convention for Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism, Press Release GA/L/3093, 25th Meeting (AM), November 11, 1998.
(6) See Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force, p. 373; see generally Claus Kreß, Gewaltverbot und Selbstverteidigung nach der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen bei staatlicher Verwicklung in Gewaltakte, pp. 149 – 155.
(7) For a different view see Sean D. Murphy, Terrorism and the Concept of "Armed Attack" in Article 51 on the U.N. Charter, 43 Harvard International Law Review 41, 50 (2002); Thomas M. Franck, Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense, 95 AJIL 839, 840.
(8) Contra: Christian Tomuschat, Der 11. September 2001 und seine rechtlichen Konsequenzen, 28 EuGRZ 535, 540 (2001); Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 2. ed., p. 238.
(9) Draft Article 4 on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), International Law Commission, UN-Doc A/54/19), Official Records of the General Assembly, 56th Session, Supplement No. 10 (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/reports/2001/english/chp4.pdf).
(10) Draft Article 8, supra HYPERLINKnote 9; see Gregory Townsend, State Responsibility of Acts of De Facto Agents, 4 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 635 (1980).
(11) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3, 29, para. 58.
(12) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, 64, para. 115.
(13) International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, July 25, 1999, Procecutor v. Tadic, 38 ILM, 1518, para. 115 (1999).
(14) Stephens Case, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 4, pp. 266 et seq.
(15) Kenneth P. Yeager Case, Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 1987, Vol. 4, pp. 92 et seq.
(16) Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment, December 18, 1996, para. 63, ECHR Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1996 VI, p. 2216, 2235, para. 56.
(17) ICTY, supra note 13, para. 131 (1999); confirmed: ICTY Appeals Chamber, Judgment, February 20, 2001, Celebici Case, 40 ILM, 639, para. 13 et seq. (emphasis added).
(18) Draft Article 11, supra note 9, Commentary, p. 121.HYPERLINK
(19) GA-Resolution 3314 (XXIX), Official Records of the General Assembly, 29th Session, Supplement No. 19, UN-Doc A/9619.
(20) Nicaragua v. United States of America, supra note 12, p. 116, para. 230.
(21) Tomuschat, supra note 8, 542.
(22) Albrecht Randelzhofer in Bruno Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, 1994, Article 51, para. 37; Schmalenbach, supra note 4, 181.
(23) GA-Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970, United Nations Official Records, 25th Session, Supplement No. 28, UN-Doc A/8028.
(24) Roberto Ago, Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980 II/1, p. 13, 70, para. 122.
(25) SC-Resolution 1368 (2001), adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th Meeting, on 12 September 2001 (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2001).
(26) See Michael Byers, Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September, 51 ICLQ 401 (2002).
(27) SC-Resolution 1368 (2001), supra note 25, and SC-Resolution 1373 (2001), adopted the Security Council at its 4385th Meeting, on 28 September 2001 (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2001).
(28) See Franck, supra note 7, 840 (2001).
(29) Murphy, supra note 6, 48 – 49.
(30) NATO Press Release - (2001) 124 - 12 September 2001
(31) INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE
(32) Byers, supra note 26, 409.
(33) Murphy, supra note 6, 47.
(34) See the famous Caroline-Case: Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod Cases, 32 AJIL 83, 89 (1938).
(35) See the Security Council's disapproving reaction to the Israeli bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, SC-Resolution 488 of 19 June 1981 (Security Council Resolutions 1981).
(36) Christopher Greenwood, International Law and the War Against Terrorism, 78 International Affairs 301, 310 (2002).
(37) Contra: Franck, supra note 7, 840.
(38) UN Doc S/2001/946 (http://www.un.int/usa/s-2001-946.htm).
(39) SC Resolution-748 (1992) Security Council resolutions - 1992; see Michael Plachta, Lockerbie Case: The Role of the Security Council in the Enforcing of the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare, 12 EJIL, 125 (2001).
(40) See also Jonathan I. Chaney, The Use of Force Against Terrorism and International Law, 95 AJIL 835, 838 (2001).
(41) supra note 38HYPERLINK.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:Prove the opposite!
Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?
Answer my question. Give me a logical answer and I'll change my mind WILGA. It's a good question. They have all the power they could ever want and thier developing a dangerous and in comparisoin unstable technology.
Is now illogical behaviour, caused maybe by national pride, a casus belli?
Besides, maybe they may have enough oil but wants to sell it because it brings more money. Maybe they know that their oil is limited and do not want to start nuclear research only after it is exhausted. Maybe they know that the usage of oil is bad for their environment and don't want to use is any more in the long run. Each explanation would be possible.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:To have a grudge against another nation is not a casus belli.
The USA have a grudge against many other nations and have indeed WMDs and are developing further WMDs. Do have other nations now have a justification to attack the USA?
The regime of Iran might feel differnt and they are ultimatly the ones you would have to persuade. I'd would do it by reminding them that any hostile actions would reduce thier nation to a grease stain. You want to go there smiling and shaking hands.
Until now, the Iran has not shown that it is really willing to attack the USA or Israel.
And I have no problem if you remind them that any
attack would be countered with the appropriate force and that, if it is really necessary, they are reduced to a grease stain.
sonofccn wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:Though the IAEA reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council, it is established independently of the United Nations under its own international treaty (the IAEA Statute).
And, if you are claiming something, it is at you to prove it. Or do you think now that your unsubstantiated believe, ignoring all contrary reports of the IAEA, is enough to justify a war?
I stand corrected. It's a completly differnt useless organisation. They sure did a bang up job on N. Korea too. Now do you have any national countries intelligence reports on teh subject. I'm more willing to buy into what the CIA believes or the British, French, German equivilent than a checkless organization.
Yes, I can understand that you think that the CIA, who was not able to prevent 9/11 and who has lied regarding the WMDs of Iraq is so much more trustworthiness than an international organisation who has until now never erred.
That's why I have two further article for you:
BBC NEWS wrote:Monday, 20 November 2006
'No proof' of Iran nuclear arms
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.
The article says the White House was dismissive about the CIA report.
The US and Europe say Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme - a charge Iran has strongly denied.
'Hostile' response
The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.
It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli agents.
The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an "error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration".
"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says if the New Yorker article is correct, it would suggest that the CIA is being more cautious than the Bush administration in evaluating whether or not Iran is on its way to building a bomb.
And he says, as with Iraq, it suggests political battles to come over how intelligence is used as a basis for American foreign policy.
PRESS TV wrote:Fri, 16 Jan 2009
CIA chief: No proof of Iranian A-bomb
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) says there is no evidence that proves Tehran is edging towards developing nuclear weapons.
Departing CIA Director Michael Hayden said Thursday that the Islamic Republic's production of low-enriched uranium does not necessarily substantiate an Iranian objective to build atomic weaponry.
He said that even if the country does gain the capability to create highly enriched uranium, still there is no “clear proof†that Iran will use the material to fuel a nuclear warhead.
Washington accuses Tehran of developing a nuclear military program. Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), insists its program is poised for the civilian applications of the technology.
This is while UN nuclear watchdog Director General Mohamed ElBaradei disputed Western claims and ruled out suggestions that the Iranian nuclear program should be considered hostile.
"They [Iranians], as I just recently mentioned still don't even have the nuclear material, the low-enriched uranium, to develop one nuclear weapon," he said in an address to the London City Hall.
"But even if they decide to walk out tomorrow from the Non-Proliferation Treaty - and you go into a lot of scenarios - it is not that we are going to see Iran tomorrow having nuclear weapons."
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has extensively monitored Iran's nuclear work since 2003, said in its latest report that it could not find any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country.
MJ/SBB/MMN
