France has proposed that a new political steering committee outside Nato be responsible for overseeing military operations over Libya.
The proposal comes just a day after Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that Nato would be in charge of enforcing UN Security Council resolution 1973.
But on Tuesday Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that it would only “help enforce” the no-fly zone, not lead it.
[blockquote] French Foreign Minister Alain Jupe said the new body would bring together foreign ministers of participating states – as well as the Arab League. [/blockquote] So now some ad hoc group of foreign ministers is going to give policy direction to NATO and (by extension) US forces. This just goes from bad to worse. If US forces are involved, then policy direction should come from Washington. That’s mighty US-centric in a multilateral operation, you might say. Yes, it is.
carl
There is a great deal of wobbling going on:
1. two days ago in the Arab League, Moscow and elewhere because of Libyan propaganda claiming civilian casualties, of which there has been no convincing proof, and which the coalition has denied. The Arab League is back on track and today Qatar, Turkey and Romania have contributed forces to the ever growing coalition. The Security Council denied a motion requested by China on behalf of Libya for a debate on the so called ‘civilian casualties’.
2. In Europe, Turkey and Germany are resisting the use of NATO to take over command from the US of the action after the initial phase. It shows the unwisdom of expanding NATO decision-making to include new members such as Turkey whose objectives may be different and may gum up the works, but who are involved in the coalition, like the Germans with the risk of back seat driving everyone up the wall. Food for thought as the US seems to be backing the obstructive Brazil to join the UN Security Council.
3. In the US, where the carping and back-biting seems to have reached epidemic proportions as we are seeing reflected on the newspapers – there seems to have been a complete take over of hysteria. I personally think it has been a mistake for Obama not to consult Congress. The UK government debated and won a vote in Parliament yesterday 557-13 in favor of the action being taken and all our major political parties are behind it. Perhaps the US President does have the authority to enter into UN actions, and they do not constitute a declaration of war, but it would have been wise to consult and keep Congress informed if he has not done so, although maybe there are political or time reasons why he was chary of or unable to do this. It also explains why the US is keen to pass on this political hot potato.
My own view is to note the opposition, but not to be spooked by it. It is a time to get behind our military and let them get on with the job, and not to make life more difficult for our politicians, and in no circumstances to assist the enemy by promoting discord as so many seem to be doing.
But I seem to be in a minority. My own view is that it all seems to be going rather well, the genocide is being closed down and Gaddaffi is being isolated internationally, from funds, and from arms which is why there is such squealing and thrashing about in Tripoli. All the toys are being thrown out of the pram.
Like carl, I would have confidence in continued US leadership, or a competent alternative, but always so that operational effectiveness is not compromised. NATO has the command structure in place and the experience of such operations to run this one, but there are reasons why an officially NATO-led operation may cause difficulty for Arab nations apparently. I differ from carl though in that I would rather cooperation in command of this operation was limited to those participating, rather than a NATO including those opposed to this action like Germany having a say. There may be something in what David Cameron is proposing, using NATO resources, its experienced command structure and resources but under a new UN-coalition command headed by someone from the US, Britain or France.
I don’t think the circumstance was ever envisaged where the majority of NATO including the US were taking action but there was a vocal minority blocking the participation of NATO itself, as seems to be going on with the Germans and perhaps Turkey.
Time for cool heads and quiet determination, and thankfulness for the saving of so many lives and for letting our military get on with the job they are engaged in with prayers for their safety.
Strange, isn’t it, that when push comes to shove, our allies always want US to do the dirty work? Sorry, but I’ve had my share of action, and now it’s time for us to hand over the reins of leadership in this war to NATO’s European members. We’ve got enough to do, as it is.
Pageantmaster, Turkey joined the NATO alliance in 1952.
Cennydd13. would you accept the US contributing forces to a coalition operation led by a non-US commander, or is it an all-or-nothing deal as far as you’re concerned? I think it’s rather early for you to conclude that the allies of the US are not prepared to do the “dirty work”; with or without the US leading the charge.
#3. Amen.
Hopefully President Obama will do what is both wise and politically expedient: get out of Iraq this year and start winding down the Afghan War.
By the way. Did you notice this piece of double-speak? [blockquote] It is not for us to choose the government of Libya – that is for the Libyan people themselves. But they have a far greater chance of making that choice now than they did on Saturday, when the opposition forces were on the verge of defeat.[/blockquote] What does this mean exactly? Well, one thing we should recognize immediately is that the bombing of government forces to prevent a government victory does not constitute “not choosing the government of Libya.” Else we wouldn’t be doing it. Yes, Yes, I know. It’s all to protect civilians. Except that any government armored vehicle in the vicinity of the battlefield (or anywhere else in Libya for that matter) will be considered a threat to civilians. If the coalition was truly neutral, then it wouldn’t care if Gadhaffi defeated the rebellion. It wouldn’t be bombing vehicles on the assumption that they might be used to attack civilians. It’s theoretically possible said vehicles could be used just to fight the rebellion. But in fact the Coalition does care about removing Gadhaffi. The Coalition is in fact engaged in a sustained campaign to degrade the government’s military advantage over the rebellion. So when they say “It is not for us to choose the government of Libya” what they mean is “Whoever happens to win the war after we smash the government’s military is OK with us. Just so long they win in a fair fight. Right now it wouldn’t be a fair fight.”
I wish they would just let their “Yes” be “Yes.” What are they really trying to do? They are trying to collapse the support of the Libyan military for Gadhaffi in hopes that it will either change sides or cease being an effective fighting force. At which point, they hope the rebellion will drive its Armored Toyotas to Tripoli, plant 100 flowers, declare a general amnesty, link arms, buy each other a Coke, call down Thomas Jefferson from whatever Deist afterlife he inhabits, and re-create the American Founding. What’s really going to happen? On the one hand, you might get an unwinnable civil war between factions – neither side having the ability to exploit a local victory and end the conflict. It brings the carnage of perpetual infantry conflict that lays waste to the country. You might get total collapse with the competing factions of the rebellion suddenly struggling with each other to claim the prize of power. You might get another military dictatorship that still wants to end a rebellion that doesn’t want to quit fighting. Then who becomes the good guys? The officers who shot Gadhaffi, or the rebellion that still wants the place of power?
In any case, the Coalition has a built-in exit condition – Gadhaffi loses power. Once that condition is met, any subsequent carnage and destruction and death that might occur will be classified as “The Libyans choosing their own Government.” No further intervention required. In fact, any intervention at that point would be problematic, because it couldn’t be accomplished with sterile cleanliness from the cockpits of fighter-bombers. It would require soldiers. On the ground. Exercising police powers. Plus, the Coalition would look pretty silly fighting the very people it just worked so hard to bring to power. Whether it can resist staying out is another matter. The logic of humanitarian intervention does not suffer qualifications, and (despite protestations to the contrary) the Coalition will be responsible for the carnage. It will probably look a lot worse than anything Gadhaffi would have done. One of those unforeseen and unintended consequences of humanitarian intervention attempted on the cheap.
carl
#6 All interesting questions carl, however currently illegal under the existing UNSCR.
However, back in the real world, the enforcement action continues to establish a no fly zone for the protection of civilians, and the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and
civilian populated areas under threat of attack; undertaken in order to ensure a “complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuses of civilians”, as provided in UNSCR 1973, under which the coalition and its forces operate.
Moreover, in the nick of time, the enforcement action would appear to have saved Benghazi and its inhabitants from imminent massacre, which is a wonderful achievement, for which they are, and we should be, deeply grateful to those who took part and who enabled it to happen.
#4 WarrenS – you are right, and moreover, I had also forgotten the tensions between France and NATO dating back to De Gaulle.
7. Pageantmaster[blockquote] All interesting questions carl, however currently illegal under the existing UNSCR.[/blockquote] The UN Security Council has no authority to render any action either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It is not a legislative body. It has no sovereignty. Gov’ts obey or disobey according to their interests. Saying “We can’t do it because the Security Council made it ‘illegal’ ” is a convenient way of saying “We never wanted to do it in the first place.” Meanwhile, upon your arrival back in the real world, you might choose to look farther into the future than the next bombing sortie.
carl
Pat Buchanan on the matter:
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2011/03/22/a_foolish_and_unconstitutional_war
My favorite response in the combox section below this article:
[i]What a confluence of negative geo-political developments. Liberal women in charge of American foreign policy trying to fix an Islamic mess.
What could go wrong?[/i]
#9 carl
[blockquote] The UN Security Council has no authority to render any action either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It is not a legislative body. It has no sovereignty.[/blockquote]
Is this an established principle, or just the world according to carl?
The rest of us acknowledge that where countries have acceded to the UN charter they are bound by it in the same way as they are by domestic law, and of course if they choose to disobey it, as Libya has, then it can also have consequences. If you didn’t want to be bound by the UN and the legality of its decisions, you shouldn’t have created and acceded to it after WWII. But you did, and you are, and there for the moment the matter rests.
Meanwhile for the rest of the world, apart from carl, UN enforcement, intervention and peacekeeping actions continue from Bosnia to Cyprus – a quite surprising number when you look at it.
One thing that has occurred to me though is whether it is fair to expect countries contributing to such actions to shoulder the financial burden as the US has in the considerable number of cruise missiles expended in Libya. Perhaps the matter of reimbursement of that cost needs to be looked at, where, as in this case, there are sanctioned funds available to pay for it. The burden has fallen unevenly in many recent cases.
[blockquote]Gov’ts obey or disobey according to their interests.[/blockquote] Well, both Saddam Hussein in 1991 and Col. Gaddaffi in 2011 have taken that line, but the results have not been promising.
[blockquote]you might choose to look farther into the future than the next bombing sortie[/blockquote]
Wherever the future lies, the decision rests with the United Nations, rather than with the US, France, Great Britain or anywhere else in relation to any future international action, as the last part of UNSCR 1973 provides that the UNSC remains seized of the matter of Libya.
Any future proposals and plans will have to go through the UN.
“What could go wrong?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html
— Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
— French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
— Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
— Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
— No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
–U.K. ministers say war could last ’30 years’
— Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
— Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians – calls bombing a ‘crusade’
I think we are seeing three problems coming out of those in #2:
1. On the first day of action, there was some rather gung ho reporting by the coalition of the extent of missile strikes and their number, along with helpful videos from the US Navy of them being fired off. The Gaddaffi regime capitalised on this by claiming massive collateral and indiscriminate civilian casualties in hospitals, schools and so on. There was no evidence for this, and the coalition denied it. The reality seems to be that the strikes have been carefully and accurately targetted on specific military items but the damage was done and it spooked the Arab League, Russia, China and others including Brazil and now even Peru. The Arabs who were committed to contributing forces have been delaying and fretting about this, and there has had to be a lot of work to reassure them. So far Qater is the only nation whose planes have arrived although UAE who backed off indicate they will now send their contribution. The coalition has been more circumspect in its reporting since then and perhaps in its actions and meanwhile Gaddaffi has moved to creating human shields and moving mobile assets into towns.
2. People going off message about the UN Resolution and talking about regime change, boots on the ground, and killing Gaddaffi, and I am afraid people in my own government have been partly responsible for this by going off message and indulging in unauthorised press speculation, in particular some of our junior ministers. I think it has spooked many including the Arab League and some in the States who are clear that this is not what the UNSC Resolution covers. I heard a US military expert this evening expressing the view that the US should get out of this and hand it over as the Europeans [Brits] were going beyond the UNSCR resolution, in spite of subsequent denials by our Prime Minister
3. The clear furore in the States and the talk of impeaching the President has been broadcast around the world, including on this blog, and has given the Tripoli regime some comfort and a return of confidence. Gaddaffi mentioned it specifically in his speech today. Notwithstanding the disciplined and excellent job the US military are doing, all people are seeing is angry Americans mouthing off at each other on overseas broadcasts. I have just watched an American Senator with I assume a Polish name, doing just that
All of the above is what we would call ‘shooting yourself in the foot’. Perhaps it is inevitable in such a broad coalition but unfortunately it has rather overwhelmed the good news about the action, which is the saving of Benghazi from slaughter and the gratitude and efforts of those who have been saved, which is a real blessing. In terms of the objectives of UNSCR 1973 there have been remarkable achievements in the last few days, but the discord has just drowned it out, which is a shame for our military, and for the people of Libya.
That said, I can understand both the worries of Americans, and their weariness with wars and interventions, and like us the need to repair our finances. America has given more in people and money than anyone could ask for and often it seems that they receive ingratitude in return, which is also a shame.
But there we go.
My suspicion is that the Libyan Regime is now pretty tottery and it is a shame that the efforts of the coalition to save life, and the Libyans in their sacrifice is being undermined by actions elsewhere as far as I can see. While forces are in action, we should stay on message, shut up, and let them do their job without undermining them.
#12 Yes, Nick Harvey has done a lot of damage talking out of turn – best if he went.
Notwithstanding the points in the Daily Mail which is pretty antagonistic, to well, everybody, there are a lot of efforts going in to getting a workable NATO command up and running. In some ways the withdrawal of the Germans makes this easier to do and seems to be the compromise worked out today along with arrangements for policing the Arms Embargo, which Turkey will participate in, but at the above article says there are still issues to be resolved. I gather the British Government is doing its best along with the French to resolve them, and given that they managed to get the UN resolution which nobody thought could be achieved, perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt as a lot of hard work is being put into making the coalition work.
Carl, I’ll bet you didn’t know that we, the US , sold our sovereignty to the UN? I’ll even bet that you like me thought that the US and the American people had some say in whether we went to war, not the only the President and UN. Silly us.
For once I absolutely agree with Nader and the liberal Democrats who want the President impeached.
[blockquote] The rest of us acknowledge that where countries have acceded to the UN charter they are bound by it in the same way as they are by domestic law[/blockquote]Heh. “UN resolutions have the force of Law in the US.” You should take that act on the road, Pageantmaster. By the by, did Britain violate its own law by refusing to comply with UNSC Resolution 502? The one that called on “the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands.” Before the British invaded? [blockquote] UN enforcement, intervention and peacekeeping actions continue from Bosnia to Cyprus[/blockquote]Yes, ‘Peacekeeping’ can be quite profitable for some countries. They make a lot of money sending ‘peacekeepers’ to other countries for the money the UN pays. Tell me, are they still prostituting 12-year olds? [blockquote] Wherever the future lies, the decision rests with the United Nations, rather than with the US, France, Great Britain or anywhere else in relation to any future international action[/blockquote] Of course it will. The UN is a creature of the powers who control it. And those powers want to limit the extent of their involvement. What better way than to say “It’s illegal.”
carl
Carl’s #6 should be well-considered.
The Coalition does seem to be operating under the principle that ANYTHING/ANYONE is better than Gaddaffi–that’s a hell of a gamble, and if the Coalition is wrong, they will, as Carl says, be charged with wiping up a larger mess. And if they “abort” the mess, they will look like a bunch who makes large messes that they don’t clean up.
There’s still a piece missing so one never knows, and one should not, what covert intelligence is coming up with. Obama’s not consulting Congress looks patriarchal and arrogant, but perhaps there is a reason for this. As my ex-military spouse accurately likes to say, “it’s amazing how your tune and actions have to change when you start getting top-secret security briefings”.
Fact is, it’s a mess–but the military is trying to do its job, there may be lots about it we don’t know, and it’s probably true that all the journalistic/media discord and rancor are not helping–dialing some of that down may be a good idea.
I can only hope that the UN, basically, puts its money where its mouth is, and with some integrity. I did not note that to be the case after Gulf War I, and also after the Sri Lankan tsunami. At least on those two scores(and maybe others that I have no personal knowledge of), they hindered more than they helped; which, along with what some others perceive as “unilateralism”(where peacenik rant is directed at the USA even as it solves other nations’ problems), much of the reconstruction in Iraq has been achieved by the US military(government protection, police/army training, and the like).
Time will tell…
17, yes the military will do it’s job. But and it’s a big but, the military oath is to support and defend the Constitution. Their oath is not to the President personally. The US military is not under a oath of personal loyalty to the leader as was the German Wehrmacht. Yet that is precisely how the President is using them. They either have to honor their oath to the Constitution or to obey the President and this case their duties conflict.
But then since we no longer follow the Constitution, I suppose they will obey the President.
#16 carl
[blockquote]Heh. “UN resolutions have the force of Law in the US.â€[/blockquote]
Why put something I did not state in quotation marks as a quote from me? That is hopefully a mistake on your part, but it is not what I said either in words nor is an accurate statement of my views.
The US is however bound by the treaty obligations it undertook to observe the UN charter as a legal obligation in the same way that it is obligated to observe its own laws. It is not part of US domestic law, nor does the UN have authority to send the US to war or any of the other strange claims made. The US can of course decide to leave the UN and resile from the UN Charter it signed up to.
[blockquote]By the by, did Britain violate its own law by refusing to comply with UNSC Resolution 502? The one that called on “the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands.†Before the British invaded?[/blockquote]
Why not quote the rest of UN Security Council Resolution 502 of 1882:
[blockquote] – Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina
– Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas],
1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;
2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas][/blockquote]
In fact diplomatic means were tried, with the assistance of the United States, but Argentina refused to withdraw immediately from the Falklands as required by the Resolution. The United Kingdom, with support from the United States for which we are grateful, then removed Argentina from its territory, as is permitted under international law.
[blockquote]“Wherever the future lies, the decision rests with the United Nations, rather than with the US, France, Great Britain or anywhere else in relation to any future international action”
Of course it will. The UN is a creature of the powers who control it. And those powers want to limit the extent of their involvement. What better way than to say “It’s illegal.â€[/blockquote]
What is “illegal” is to use the UN enforcement action to do anything other than enforce UN Resolution 1973 whose aim is to prevent attacks on civilians.
Btw there has been a “thank you” rally taking place today in Benghazi to thank international nations including yours that have taken part in this air campaign – they are grateful to us for saving them from certain massacre, and I am glad for them, but sad for Misurata and other towns, where we have not arrived in time to prevent them turning into a killing field, although they still fight on. I hope current action stops them being completely massacred.
By the way, carl, you have reminded me that the behaviour of the Argentine Junta in many ways mirrored that of Gaddaffi and his regime – torture, killing, people ‘disappearing’ and manic self-deception. They didn’t deserve to run Argentina, let alone the Falklands. And interestingly the expulsion from the Falklands provided the impetus for the collapse of the regime and the re-establishment of a democratic civil government in that country, for which many are also grateful.
19. Pageantmaster[blockquote] Why put something I did not state in quotation marks as a quote from me?[/blockquote] The confusion is entirely my fault. When I quote another commenter, I invariably use blockquotes. I used quotations around that sentence merely to set it apart from my own thinking. I thought the distinction would be clear. It evidently was not clear. I will be more careful in the future. However, I maintain it was an accurate paraphrase of what you said. I will let the reader decide if there is any significant difference between … [blockquote] The rest of us acknowledge that where countries have acceded to the UN charter they are bound by it in the same way as they are by domestic law [/blockquote] … and …[blockquote] UN resolutions have the force of Law in the US.[/blockquote] … especially given the context that you were addressing my rejection of UN sovereignty. [blockquote] Why not quote the rest of UN Security Council Resolution 502 of 1882[/blockquote] Because the rest of the resolution was irrelevant to the fact that the UNSC had called upon both side to refrain from the use of force. I looked in vain for some authorization for British action, or at least a repeal of this resolution that is binding in the same way as domestic law. I could not find it. So I naturally concluded that your effort to expel Argentina was illegal. Ah, but you have appealed to a higher authority than the UN … something called “International law.” What is the authority behind this “International law,” and how does it supersede the clear direction of the UNSC to “refrain from the use or threat of force?” And do you really think you need to appeal to this alleged “International law” to remove aggressors from your own territory? Or are you just trying to find some way to justify why the sovereign nation of Great Britain could ignore a Security Council Resolution in 1982 even as it considers itself bound by a Security Council resolution in 2011?
carl
carl
[1] You say:
[blockquote]I will let the reader decide if there is any significant difference between …
“where countries have acceded to the UN charter they are bound by it in the same way as they are by domestic law” [my quote]
and
“UN resolutions have the force of Law in the US” [your quote attibuted to me.[/blockquote]
There are considerable differences:
1. between a charter and a resolution;
2. the treaty obligations the US undertook by signing onto the UN Charter, by which the US bound itself to observe them and imputing to me a statement that a UN Security Council resolution has the force of law in the US as if incorporated into it;
[2] You say:
[blockquote]… especially given the context that you were addressing my rejection of UN sovereignty.[/blockquote]
No it was in response to this statement by you:
[blockquote]The UN Security Council has no authority to render any action either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It is not a legislative body. It has no sovereignty.[/blockquote]
A legal action is one either permitted under international law, such as self-defense, including expelling invaders from one’s territory, or which has been authorised under the United Nations Charter.
[3] You say[blockquote]I looked in vain for some authorization for British action[/blockquote]
I have explained, that under international law related to self defense in relation to one’s own territory, there is a right, which the UK exercised to undertake the action they did. The UNSC resolution does not negate this right to defend territory, nor did the UK ignore the Resolution, but when Argentina refused to observe its terms, the UK enforced it as well as exercising its absolute right of self-defence. Again, I will take the most charitable view of why you quoted the Resolution incompletely, but unfortunately misleadingly.
Any country, including the coalition participants, the UK, France and the US, claiming to enforce UNSC Resolution 1973 of 2011 must do so strictly in accordance with its terms, which give all necessary permissions to enable the protection of civilians and the establishment of a no fly zone over Libya, but does not give permission for occupation, regime change or anything else by the participants.
OK, gentle reader, let’s go through this whole conversation. First Pageantmaster said …[blockquote] [7] All interesting questions carl, however currently illegal under the existing UNSCR.[/blockquote] “Illegal.” As in against the law. The vehicle for defining these actions as illegal is held up to be the UNSCR. The reader should immediately ask “What law? The UN has no jurisdiction to define law.” Which is why I said…[blockquote] [9] The UN Security Council has no authority to render any action either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ It is not a legislative body. It has no sovereignty.[/blockquote] To which Pageantmaster responded …[blockquote] [11] The rest of us acknowledge that where countries have acceded to the UN charter they are bound by it in the same way as they are by domestic law, and of course if they choose to disobey it, as Libya has, then it can also have consequences.[/blockquote] In other words, countries who have acceded to the UN charter have essentially given the UN jurisdiction over their actions by treaty obligation. They are bound to the UN charter in the same way they are bound by domestic law. This was clearly Pageantmaster’s assertion. Now of course, we are not talking about a charter. We are talking about a UNSCR. The “illegal” actions to which Pageantmaster refers are ‘illegal’ under the theory that only the UNSC can authorize them. He asserts that countries agree to be bound by that determination when they accede to the UN charter. So if (for example) our President met with his cabinet in the White House and determined to send ground troops into Libya to protect civilians, our President would be committing an “illegal” act. He would first require a UNSCR to take any such action. This legal opinion is (shall we say) less than accepted in the US, and so I responded with …[blockquote] [16] Heh. “UN resolutions have the force of Law in the US.†[/blockquote] But wait. Let’s say the UNSCR proscribed the US from taking any action. Like UN Resolution 502 proscribed Britain from using force in the Falklands. Then the countries involved have been specifically instructed by the UNSC that they have not received enabling authorization to use force. Congress (or Parliament for that matter) might declare war, but it does not thereby override the treaty obligation it acquired by acceding to the UN charter. The declaration of war is therefore ‘illegal.’ Under which jurisdiction? The jurisdiction of the US. A UNSCR has thus been transmuted into US law, and acquired the force of US law by means of a treaty. Which is why Pageantmaster said… [blockquote] [19] The US is however bound by the treaty obligations it undertook to observe the UN charter as a legal obligation in the same way that it is obligated to observe its own laws. [/blockquote] And so I leave it to you …[blockquote] [21] I will let the reader decide if there is any significant difference[/blockquote] Pageantmaster is correct when he says the following. But it rather misses the point.[blockquote] [22] There are considerable differences:
1. between a charter and a resolution;
2. the treaty obligations the US undertook by signing onto the UN Charter[/blockquote] He has many times said that the introduction of ground troops into Libya is ‘illegal’ under the existing UNSCR. That’s where we started. Remember? [blockquote] [7] All interesting questions carl, however currently illegal under the existing UNSCR.[/blockquote] Now in my simple non-lawyer mind, if a UNSCR can proscribe the US from going to war (as in ‘Illegal’), then that UNSCR has acquired the force of law in the US. I don’t know where else it would have the force of law than within the jurisdictions of the individual countries since it is without question that the UN has not jurisdiction of its own. It’s a building in NYC. It rules nothing. It governs nothing. It passes boatloads of resolutions that are by and large ignored. But then I’m just an Engineer.
carl
Carl, I’m just an engineer too, but, in my simple mind, your argument seems to boil down to “might makes right”. Or maybe “the mightiest are the rightiest”? Of course, my tolerance for anything but skim reading elapsed several posts back.
#23 carl
Thanks for your comment addressed to the gentle reader.
Let me try to dispell some of your confusion:
Illegality
You make a category mistake when you say:
[blockquote]The reader should immediately ask “What law? The UN has no jurisdiction to define law.â€[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]The declaration of war is therefore ‘illegal.’ Under which jurisdiction? The jurisdiction of the US.[/blockquote]
Illegality is defined in terms of international, not domestic law.
International Law
In international law, conduct of relations between countries including dispute resolution, are not just a matter for decisions by individual countries, but subject to a complex web of laws, treaties, and jurisprudence, of which the UN Charter is but one.
The UN Charter
In terms of military action, however the UN Charter binds the majority of countries of the world who have acceded to it, much like the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war bind those countries who have acceded to them, but one example among many of these binding international relationships.
Military Action
International Law existed before the UN Charter, but in the UN Charter it was developed and codified, and among the acceding countries it is regarded as binding in relation not only to those countries but also to others, whether or not they have acceded to the Charter. Actions taken in accordance with International Law are regarded as legal, and those outside as illegal. Prima Facae if an action is in accord with a provision under the UN Charter it is legal.
Thus for example:
1. Invading Canada because you felt like it would be illegal under international law.
2. Defending yourself against an invasion by Canada would be legal under both International Law and the UN charter.
3. A military incursion into Canada to prevent a massacre of civilians would be permitted under both International Law and specifically the UN charter without a formal resolution, but the better course would be to get one. This incursion would be legal in international law, whether or not Canada had acceded to the UN Charter as far as the members of the UN is concerned.
4. Enforcing a UN Resolution or UN Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter [such as UNSCR 1973 on Libya] is legal under International Law and the UN charter.
Relationship with Domestic Law
International Law is not incorporated into domestic law, such as that of the US, unless the domestic legislature has incorporated it into its own law by statutory provision.
Thus, the UN cannot require, let us say, Canada [or the US] to take military action, join a coalition or anything else, but on the other hand the domestic government and legislature does not have an unfettered right to ignore international law. It might be legal under Canadian law to invade the US and to declare war, but unless falling within one of the provisions of International Law it might still be illegal under international law. Similarly a decision by the Canadian Parliament to kill its citizens would still be illegal under international law and would be legal grounds for other countries to take action to stop it, and for the UN Security Council to make a binding Resolution in relation to it [as has happened in relation to Libya].
Does International Law operate as Domestic Law?
The answer is no, it is not incorporated into domestic law, unless by domestic statute, but that does not mean that any country, including Libya can ignore it, or that it is not binding on that country in the same way as domestic law is, and this is not the same thing as saying that it is incorporated into domestic law. So to say that:
[blockquote]if a UNSCR can proscribe the US from going to war (as in ‘Illegal’), then that UNSCR has acquired the force of law in the US. I don’t know where else it would have the force of law than within the jurisdictions of the individual countries since it is without question that the UN has not jurisdiction of its own. [/blockquote]
is also a category mistake. To say that International law, such as the UN Charter has no independent existence outside of the domestic laws of individual countries ignores what the UN Charter is – an international treaty acceded to by the members of the United Nations and to which they have agreed to be bound, not only for themselves and other UN members but also for countries which have not acceeded. The UN Charter is now part of International Law.
So the argument that the US is not bound to behave in accordance with the UN Charter [which also curiously is Gaddaffi’s argument] because the US [or Libya] is a sovereign country misses the point. It no more avails Gaddaffi to claim he can do what he likes in his own country as it is sovereign and not subject to the UN Charter, than it did the Nazi war criminals not to recognise the jurisdiction of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, also set up by international agreement.
You may be an engineer carl, but I suspect you also know quite a bit about the rules and obligations of war from your past life.
It seems to me that, “International Law”, with its occasional(or frequent) difficulty to enforce, is set up more along the lines of a “Gentlemen’s Agreement”–frankly, a little like the Anglican Communion. And it shows that things can get real sticky(or interesting, depending on your mindset) when some stop acting like “Gentlemen”.
Thanks to all for their educational posts, and prayers for the situation in Libya and elsewhere.
25. Pageantmaster
Oh, I don’t deny the existence of what you call “International law.” I simply deny that this collection of conventions and customs between sovereign states is law in any meaningful sense of the term. Who is the temporal sovereign that sits over the states and imposes it? By what authority is it imposed? Where is its reign of jurisdiction? Who enforces it? These questions have no meaningful answers. In every case, the enforcement of “international law” is dependent upon the sovereign power of actual states.
And Nuremberg is the worst possible example you could have chosen to demostrate International Law. The Germans committed horrible acts and were judged because they lost. The Russians committed horrible acts and sat in judgment because they won. Where then is law? It is excluded for the convenience of the sovereign states.
carl
I have greatly appreciated this argument, Pageantmaster, and also the spirit with which you have engaged. It does you credit. Well … as much as a lawyer can receiver credit. 🙂
#27 Hello carl
[blockquote] I simply deny that this collection of conventions and customs between sovereign states is law in any meaningful sense of the term. Who is the temporal sovereign that sits over the states and imposes it? By what authority is it imposed? Where is its reign of jurisdiction? Who enforces it? These questions have no meaningful answers. In every case, the enforcement of “international law†is dependent upon the sovereign power of actual states.[/blockquote]
Well of course one could have a very interesting discussion of what law is and what its source is, and the view has changed over time. A few hundred years ago there was an idea that the law was derived from God who appoints rulers, who hold authority under him, and to whom and to whose laws the populace owe allegience. James I was a fan of this view, but Charles I wasn’t wholly successful in defending it. Others believe law reflects some form of ‘natural justice’, but really since the Restoration and the 18th Century the idea has grown both in the US and Europe that authority and governance rests in and derives from the people. People through consent empower legislators on their behalf for the common good, and owe a duty to obey the laws made on their behalf by those legislators.
If you think about it the idea that people can empower and agree to abide by law made by their representatives is not so far from the idea that sovereign groupings of such people collected in sovereign countries can by treaty in turn empower and agree to be bound by law made by their representatives to govern the relationships between those countries in defined areas for the common good. It doesn’t mean that countries are abrogating their own domestic sovereignty, but it does mean that in areas of common concern, such as the maintenance of peace or the suppression of piracy or regulation of international air routes that it is in everyone’s interest to create and submit to such ‘international law’.
Much as domestic authority and law has validity and legality arising from the consent of the members of a sovereign country, so international authority and law can be created and accepted by the consent of sovereign countries. This is what constitutes international law, and it has the same root and authority as domestic law. If you think about it, that is what the individual sovereign states of America did in coming together in a federation to create the United States, and decided what matters they would empower the Federal Government to deal with.
btw going back a bit and the issue of the UK action over the Falklands it is worth noting Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter:
[blockquote]Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[/blockquote]
It is of course always a pleasure and a challenge to engage with you carl when you lay down your spanner and slide rule as an engineer.