mardi 17 mai 2011

A new world order

 
When Edith Shain was kissed by a sailor on August the 14th 1945 in Times Square, America was celebrating the victory of freedom and democracy upon tyranny and the subjugation of people. 

As we understand it, democracy means free elections, the rule of law and a judiciary system that makes sure everyone is entitled to a fair and balanced trial, in criminal cases in particular.

Hence the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials where war criminals were tried and condemned according to the fundamental principles of democracy, each of them being assisted by a lawyer for example.

Sixty years or so later when the American led coalition invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, the  aim of the war was to get hold of OBL until President Bush declared: ‘I truly am not that concerned about him’.

Ok, so the goal of this invasion shifted from catching a man into "helping" a country to adopt democratic values and to respect the tenets of democracy that is free elections, rule of the law and fair and balanced judiciary system.

A couple of weeks ago an American commando raided a town in Pakistan, got hold of OBL and deliberately killed him and dumped his corpse in the ocean.

I don't discuss the morality of the raid, the cold blood killing of OBL or the violation of Pakistan territorial integrity. I don't quibble either about how things should have or shouldn't have been done, I just have no opinion.

Fact is the whole thing was an indisputable breach of international law and democratic principles, the very same ones the U.S has been adamantly calling all countries around the world to abide to.

Now, the US is in Afghanistan to help this country to rebuilt  itself according to the democratic values America has been championing for decades the world over while in the same time the US breaches international law by intervening in Pakistan and killing without due trial the spiritual leader of the people it fights in a country it occupies to teach its inhabitants to learn and to respect the democratic values it violates next door. 

Is it me or is there something that simply doesn't fit here?

74 commentaires:

Anijo a dit…

Conpiracy Theory Generator

In order to understand the world today you need to realize that everything is controlled by a secret cabal made up of Jews and Americans.

The conspirators are crafty and their conspiracy began in ancient Babylon with the Rabbis .

The conspirators have been responsible for many events throughout history, including the attacks on 9/11.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified only by their membership in the Learned Elders of Zion.

The conspirators have help from powerful elite Freemasons , and the conspiracy benefits undeserving puritanical Americans and Jews at the expense of liberal clear-thinking French citizens.

The conspirators want to oppress all Europeans , and round up and restrain resisters in Masonic halls . They are using subversive agents to establish a New World Order .

In order to prepare for this, we all must march in Paris and other respectable cities in Europe. All of this was revealed years ago . Since the media is controlled by Jewish journalists you should get your information only from a truth-telling blog .

Flocon a dit…

That's a funny one Anijo. Or maybe not. Didn't you jump the gun here or did you mistake my little blog with that of Charlie Sheen?

The post will have nothing to do with revisionism but now, on second thought, it may. Or maybe not. You'll tell me if Ive been a bad boy ;-)

What's interesting is that this particular picture associated with this title induced your stream of consciousness into thinking of revisionism wich definitively wasn't on my mind.

Were you on an offensive mood late afternoon? :-D

("you should get your information only from a truth-telling blog") That part wasn't absolutely indispensable Anijo ;-)

ZapPow a dit…

@ Anijo

In order to understand the world today you need to realize that everything is controlled by a secret cabal made up of Jews and Americans.

Or Thetans ;°)

Anonyme a dit…

The Jews, Americans, Freemasons and Thetans are just fronts. We learned long ago on SuperFrenchie that the strings are really pulled by the Knights Templar.

SemperFidelis

Ned Ludd a dit…

The real threat of terrorism in the U.S. comes from the extreme right as a "60 Minutes" program showed; for a summary, follow the link.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/60-minutes-exposes-sovereign-citizen

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

Your link reminds me of the final scene of Easy Rider when Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda are shot at by two or three guys from their pick-up truck.

Although that was in July of 1972, I still vividly remember the movie and that very violent scene because I was so ignorant, clueless and uninformed that I couldn't put two and two together and realize what rednecks were.

Not that I thought of America as a giant Dysney park but I was totally unaware of what America was in reality.

And no, Anijo and SemperFi, I wasn't born anti American.

Anonyme a dit…

//A couple of weeks ago an American commando raided a town in Pakistan, got hold of OBL and deliberately killed him//
Your premise is wholly speculative. No witness has described the events.
The international law here is not complicated, but often misrepresented.
First - OBL was the military chief of an organization which has expressly declared war against the US. This organization has committed acts of war against the US. OBL was an enemy combatant.
Second - Soldiers have no duty to offer enemy combatants the opportunity to surrender. Thus, the soldier who crawls through the dark with his combat knife, and comes upon a sleeping sentry, has no duty to wake the sentry and request a surrender. He may slit the sentry's throat as he sleeps.
Third - However, if the enemy combatant offers an unambiguous surrender, it must be accepted.
Fourth - PROVIDED that the soldier need take no unreasonable risks, under the circumstances, in accepting the surrender.
These rules explain why soldiers may ambush enemy combatants from hiding, fire artillery at them from afar, and bomb them from the air, all without any warning and offer of a chance to surrender.
If OBL made an unambiguous offer to surrender, and the SEALs shot him anyway, that would be a crime. If they captured him, and later shot him after he was in their control, that would be a crime. Under any ambiguous circumstances, however, the SEALs were not obligated to take any unreasonable risks, under all the circumstances, and they were entitled to shoot at him.
Without any credible evidence of either of the two criminal scenarios above at hand, I deny your premise.
It is arguable that the US violated international law by conducting the raid in Pakistan. That is a matter between the states involved. The right to sovereignty of the state of Pakistan confers no substantive rights on OBL. Since Pakistan apparently has no plans to seek redress from the US (at least, publicly)that matter is closed.
Some academicians, particularly in Europe, argue that OBL and other Al Kaida leaders are not enemy combatants, but merely criminals, and that therefore the rules that apply to the police when they attempt to apprehend a domestic criminal are the law. The US, the UK, France and most other Western states do not accept this legal theory. Since the sources of international law are treaties and the custom of nations, and not academic articles, the law remains as I have stated it.
SemperFidelis

Anonyme a dit…

//And no, Anijo and SemperFi, I wasn't born anti American.//

Aha! So it was American movies that did it to you.

SemperFidelis

Anijo a dit…

Aha! So it was American movies that did it to you.
LOL !

Thanks for the laugh SemperFi. It has been a rather dull day. I needed that injection of humor. ☺

ZapPow a dit…

Democracy is when your side wins.

Flocon a dit…

ZapPow,

Encore et toujours j'admire et envie ce don de la concision qui est tien ;-)

Mais je suis bien d'accord. Le vainqueur a toujours le droit pour lui (déjà dans les cours d'écoles). En plus Dieu est toujours présent au cas où le droit serait défaillant.

Ta sentence me fait penser à la phrase attribuée à Napoléon :

"L'Histoire est un mensonge que personne ne conteste".

Cela dit, tout et son contraire lui ont été attribués dont le fameux Le Jour où la Chine etc.

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

Thanks for the time it took you to write that elaborated comment.

Comme d'habitude, je réponds point par point (that's what they taught me to do whe I was a student in law during the previous century)


-1

"OBL was an enemy combatant."

The concept of "enemy combatant" is a fabrication of the Bush administration so that the US could avoid abide to the third Geneva convention (1949) regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Hence Guantanamo that not all American jurists consider legal and in accordance to American values re law of the rule.

Besides, On March 13, 2009 United States Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that the United States had abandoned the Bush administration term "enemy combatant". The statement said, ""As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law.

Thus the use of the term enemy combatant is irrelevant and have no legal meaning or value.

War has turned into a very loose concept since we hear about war against cancer, war against drug lords, war against tobacco or road casualties.

-2 and 3

"Soldiers have no duty to offer enemy combatants the opportunity to surrender"

Again, 'enemy combatant' has no value in the eyes of the American Administration.

The soldiers who captured Saddam Hussein might as well have killed him on the spot without politely asking him to surrender like OBL probably was about to do (he was unarmed were we told by the Administration).

The goal of the US wasn't to kill Saddam Hussein but to bring him to trial with Iraki judges in order to demonstrate what democracy was all about.

Here is the opinion of an American professor of law:

It appears that the mission all along, despite White House assertions to the contrary, was to kill bin Laden, not capture him—that is, to assassinate him.

I am not arguing against a policy of assassination, but I do think we should call what we are doing by its proper name.

Flocon a dit…

-4

"Without any credible evidence of either of the two criminal scenarios above at hand, I deny your premise."

Your premise is wholly speculative. No witness has described the events (See above).

"It is arguable that the US violated international law by conducting the raid in Pakistan. That is a matter between the states involved."

Precisely, Pakistan isn't really happy about what happened in their country.

"The right to sovereignty of the state of Pakistan confers no substantive rights on OBL"

Am I allowed to disagree here?

Any foreign individual is under the attention and responsibility of the country he resides in, no matter if the person is a criminal of whatever kind that may be.

General de Gaulle had one French opponent to his policy in Algeria abducted by the French secret services in Germany without the Germans being informed. Konrad Adenauer didn't appreciate.

Would the Chinese (say) abduct a Chinese dissent from the US without Washington being informed in any way, I wonder if the US would accept the Chinese argument that said dissent is a criminal under Chinese law and that Washington was being uncooperative in deferring the Chinese dissent to the Chinese autorities?

" Since Pakistan apparently has no plans to seek redress from the US (at least, publicly) that matter is closed."

You decide it's closed!

"Some academicians, particularly in Europe, argue that OBL and other Al Kaida leaders are not enemy combatants, but merely criminals etc.

It may be true but some sources would be welcome. Anyway, some Americans also share that opinion.

As I wrote in the post I eventually don't care what the fate of Bin Laden was but when I see some discrepancies between principles and practise I say there are discrepancies.

OBL has been made bigger than life since 9/11 but that's another issue.

Anonyme a dit…

Re links, I lack the skill to do it well, so I don't. I will try to provide citations. Here is the text of the statement by Holder to which you refer:
//Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 13, 2009
Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush. A copy of the brief is attached.

Memo Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority

Declaration of Attorney General Eric Holder//

See next post, SemperFidelis

Anonyme a dit…

In brief, what happened here is the Department of Justice ceased to rely, as an authority to hold the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, on the Bush Administration argument that the President had the authority, as Commander in Chief, to independently designate the detainees as continuing "enemy combatants" and therefor hold them as prisoners indefinitely without recourse to Habeus Corpus. Holder ceased to rely on the legal consequences of describing the detainees as enemy combatants in the pending litigation before the Supreme Court. He did not purport to abolish this term from international law.
The term "enemy combatant" is alive and well in international law. If you google up "DoD Dictionary" you will get a web site with a search engine. Type in "enemy combatant" and you will get the current Department of Defense definition, which I copy for you below.

//enemy combatant (DOD) In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict.//

Note that Mr. Holder, in a recent BBC interview, maintained that the conduct of the SEALs was lawful. I will get you the cite for that interview tomorrow. One can find lawyers on both sides of the question on both sides of the Atlantic. But the important point is that lawyers do not make international law with their comments. States make international law by interpreting treaties and by their conduct.
More than enough for any night.
SemperFidelis

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon: I put up two long posts on this subject tonight, and they seem to have disappeared. I am not ignoring your response. But I am too knackered to start all over again.
Maybe I will try again later this week
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

I won't prolong an exchange about American law since I know nothing about it, as simple as that.

A) The fact that the Geronimo raid took place in Pakistan without it being informed is still a breach of International law re the sovereignty of Pakistan. Note that I don't take side of course.

B) "the important point is that lawyers do not make international law with their comments."

We can partly agree on this point while keeping in mind that laws, be they international or domestic, are made by these same lawyers who comment said laws.

It is also these very comments by lawyers which contribute to the making and modifying of the laws.

C) "States make international law by interpreting treaties and by their conduct."

We have a heavy loaded sentence here.

-1 Interpreting treaties means that all options are available for every State to interpret treaties it has signed and ratified according to its needs depending on the circumstances.

How reliable is any State if it's allowed to interpret treaties according to its needs?

Since you support this option (this is how I understand your sentence since you wrote it) what is left of international law as a source of regulation of conduct if everyone can do as it pleases?

-2 The second argument in your sentence shows your consistency since the conduct of States, so you write, defines international law.

Again, if every State's conduct participate to the elaboration of international law it very much looks like the rule of the jungle where the mightiest wins.

That stand is then basically in contradiction with the raison d'être of international law wich should be a commonly agreed upon set of treaties everyone is compelled to abide to.

This is all very far from the recommandations put forth in the work of this much respected precursor of modern international law.

I have to totally reject this lecture of international law that you "define" above.

On the other hand I know you're partially right since -to a certain extent- that's what happens in practise.

Tout cela explique pourquoi je n'ai pas "embrassé" une carrière juridique after I was through with my four years of law at the university: I knew all too well that in any situation black could be told white and conversely.

There always is an appendix in the umpteenth paragraph of a 87 year old text or judgement that can be used pro or contra any case.

Law simply isn't reliable as is (a+b)² = a² + 2ab + b² which isn't a scoop...

The aim of the post was to provide some stuff for discussion, thanks for taking part to it.

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon: If you want a discussion about international law, you have certainly started off well with your lucid post above. I hope that Anijo and some of the other French posters will get interested and offer their views. I would like to hear from Ned, since her perspective is at the other end of the spectrum from mine.
//-1 Interpreting treaties means that all options are available for every State to interpret treaties it has signed and ratified according to its needs depending on the circumstances.//

This is actually only a modest overstatement of international law as it exists today. The only qualification to your statement above is the restrictions on a very few crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide). Each state does have the power of "auto-interpretation" of legal rules, a power that necessarily follows from the absence of international courts endowed with general and compulsory jurisdiction. In other words, if France and Germany disagree about the meaning of the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force to protect civilians in Libya (as they, in fact, do)there is no court to which Germany can go to force a decision on the matter which binds France. Contrast this with the domestic situation in France. If you disagree with a workman on the meaning of a contract between you (and treaties are much like contracts between states)there is a French court to which you can go for a resolution. And the workman cannot avoid the decision by just refusing to agree to go to court. Contrast this with what happened to the Palestinian Authority, which plead a case before the UN International Court of Justice regarding the barrier wall. Israel refused to submit to the Court's jurisdiction (which it had every right to do), so the ICJ could issue only an advisory opinion, not binding on Israel.

//That stand is then basically in contradiction with the raison d'être of international law wich should be a commonly agreed upon set of treaties everyone is compelled to abide to.//

This is a clear statement of the end-state many international legal scholars, and many voters in Europe, desire. We are far from that state today, and unlikely to get there without a profound change in the international state system. The reasons why this is true (or false) would make an interesting discussion.

Exhausted,
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

I'm glad you answered my last comment since some time after I wrote it I realized it could be interpreted as a suggestion to end the conversation (the "I won't prolong etc." which was aimed at the American law part only.)

Also the final line where I thanked you wasn't an invitation to safely drive home, it's just that Anijo has demanded I be polite with you...

"I would like to hear from Ned, since her perspective is at the other end of the spectrum from mine."

Now, that's what I call a modest understatement!

------------

The issue of International law is deeper and larger than the Pacific Ocean as you know, so any exchange of views about it can only be very, very restricted in scope, be it only because very few people indeed can pretend they master the topic.

(On second thought, nobody has a complete knowledge and understanding of this realm of law)

How can any international court of justice or international organisation force any of its signatories to abide to its decisions?

The ultimate tool would be the use of force which has been practised since the age of the cavemen.

Since International Law has been conceived in order to push humanity forward and out of barbary the use of force is de jure prohibited.

The Iraq war unfortunately didn't set a good example.

Another possibility is to not sign or ratify such court as the International Criminal Court established in 2002 like the U.S, Israel, China and many others have.

As you write, "We are far from an end-state today, and unlikely to get there without a profound change in the international state system"

How fitting that this post bears its title! Sure the reference wasn't lost on you.

-----------------

Back to Pakistan territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Had Ben laden taken refuge in the former UssR or in China which would have refused to deliver him to the U.S (cold war, some disagreement over trade issues or Taiwan, whatever) would the U.S had launched a Geronimo-like raid in these countries?

Methinks not.

Here again is an example where the interpretation of what the concept of national sovereignty means is very dependant of the circumstances.

International law is a floating boat which pitches and rolls, rolls and pitches according to the winds, streams and currents of History.

Not much reliable but so far International law is like something you've already heard: Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

Anijo a dit…

I hope that Anijo and some of the other French posters will get interested and offer their views

Oh, I wish I could offer some lucid comments, but all of this is so complex, I'm not sure exactly what to think. For example, re the sovereignty of Pakistan, all I can do is repeat what SemperFi said: "Pakistan apparently has no plans to seek redress from the US (at least, publicly). "

And what about Libya? Is the military action against this country a breach of International law re the sovereignty of Libya? How about bombing places where Gadaffi is known to live and thereby attempting to assassinate him? Is that legal under international law? If the U.S. had bombed the place where OBL was staying, would that be different than killing him during the raid?

The official 'Lawfulness of the U.S. Operation Against Osama bin Laden'is given here.

The United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law. As a matter of domestic law, Congress authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). These domestic and international legal authorities continue to this day.

As you know, this is a conflict with an organized terrorist enemy that does not have conventional forces, but that plans and executes its attacks against us and our allies while hiding among civilian populations. That behavior simultaneously makes the application of international law more difficult and more critical for the protection of innocent civilians.

Some have suggested that the very act of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law. During World War II, for example, American aviators tracked and shot down the airplane carrying the architect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, who was also the leader of enemy forces in the Battle of Midway. This was a lawful operation then, and would be if conducted today. Indeed, targeting particular individuals serves to narrow the focus when force is employed and to avoid broader harm to civilians and civilian objects.

Moreover, the manner in which the U.S. operation was conducted—taking great pains both to distinguish between legitimate military objectives and civilians and to avoid excessive incidental injury to the latter—followed the principles of distinction and proportionality described above, and was designed specifically to preserve those principles, even if it meant putting U.S. forces in harm’s way. Finally, consistent with the laws of armed conflict and U.S. military doctrine, the U.S. forces were prepared to capture bin Laden if he had surrendered in a way that they could safely accept. The laws of armed conflict require acceptance of a genuine offer of surrender that is clearly communicated by the surrendering party and received by the opposing force, under circumstances where it is feasible for the opposing force to accept that offer of surrender. But where that is not the case, those laws authorize use of lethal force against an enemy belligerent, under the circumstances presented here.

In sum, the United States acted lawfully in carrying out its mission against Osama bin Laden.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

"Pakistan apparently has no plans to seek redress from the US (at least, publicly)".

Apparently. At least publicly.

There are reservations, aren't they?

Fact is Pakistan is in an awkward position here, pretending not to have known the whereabouts of OBL. And not in a very strong position to seek redress from the U.S anyway.

That Pakistan may or may not seek redress from the U.S is totally irrelevant regarding the violation of its national sovereignty.

Would the Geronimo raid be legal a posteriori should Pakistan seek redress from the U.S?

"If the U.S. had bombed the place where OBL was staying, would that be different than killing him during the raid?"

That would have constituted a blatant breach of International law and violation of Pakistani's sovereignty like the Geronimo raid was.

---------

Libya is a quite different story. There has been a vote in the U.N authorizing protection of citizens by all means.

I foresee your possible answer that bombing places where Kaddafi is supposed to live wasn't part ot the U.N vote.

And this is where SemperFidelis's view is vindicated : International law is all about interpretation and conduct of the States.

---------

re The official Lawfulness of the U.S operation as exposed by an American lawyer.

How much value would you grant to a text written by a Chinese lawyer explaining how legal is the occupation of Thibet by the Chinese army?

Maybe can I help here :

In sum, China acted lawfully in carrying out its mission against thibetan terrorists

Anijo a dit…

Libya is a quite different story. There has been a vote in the U.N authorizing protection of citizens by all means.

Aha. So it is the U.N. who decides the justification of any given morally/rationally/ or internationally-based concept an/or law? So we're back to the idea that SemperFi brought up vis-a-vis the complexity of international law and SemperFi is thus once again vindicated?

Anijo a dit…

Apparently. At least publicly.

...

There are reservations, aren't they?


Yes. And yet this is of concern to to Pakistanis and they aren't complaining publicly, are they?

Anijo a dit…

There has been a vote in the U.N authorizing protection of citizens by all means.

What about the citizens of the U.S.A.? Are the presidents of the U.S.A. authorized to protect the U.S. citizens by all means?

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

Before I go to bed, I simply don't understand your two last comments. Je ne comprends pas ce que tu veux dire. Comme je perçois qu'il y a de l'ironie dans ce que tu écris cela trouble ma compréhension de ton message.

Pour ce qui est du premier commentaire, peut-être me suis-je trompé de mot en employant "vindicated".

Je voulais dire que SemperFidelis is proven right en pratique quand il écrit que le droit international est constitué des interprétations et des conduites des États.

Il y a encore de l'incompréhension dans l'air dirait-on...

Anonyme a dit…

Anijo: You plead incapacity, and then post enough thought-provoking comments to keep us engaged for a week!

I am, like Flocon, unable to stay awake for long. But I will offer a quotation, since Flocon gave us a good one earlier on this thread.

Regarding the nature of international law, and of one of its subsets, the law of war...

//...if international law is, in some ways, at the vanishing point of law, the law of war is, perhaps even more conspicuously, at the vanishing point of international law."//
Sir Hersh Lauterpacht
H. Lauterpacht, "The problem of the revision of the law of war", 29 BYIL. (1952), at 382

Sir Hersh's meaning is clear to English-speakers. It may not translate well into French.

My goal for my next post is to explain why Pakistan's sovereignty is a state right that confers no right on an individual person. And why this state right exists only vis-a-vis another state. And why third states who's sovereignty was not violated have no standing to complain about a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. And why it follows that, if Pakistan does not complain, there is no violation, since the international law rights of a state do not exist "in thin air" but only when a state chooses to exercise them. All of the preceding conditioned only by the fact that, since the advent of the UN, third states can become interested if the Security Council takes up the matter and votes to take action.

That, anyway, is the plan.
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

Dans tout échange, avant de continuer à développer une argumentation il convient d'être au clair avec les points qui ont pu être évoqués auparavant.

J'ai évoqué quelques hypothèses qui sont restées sans réponse. Ce n'est pas la première fois...

A
- 1°) "Would the Chinese (say) abduct a Chinese dissent from the US without Washington being informed in any way, I wonder if the US would accept the Chinese argument that said dissent is a criminal under Chinese law and that Washington was being uncooperative in not delivering the Chinese dissent to the Chinese autorities?"


- 2°) "Had Ben laden taken refuge in the former UssR or in China which would have refused to deliver him to the U.S (cold war, some disagreement over trade issues or Taiwan, whatever) would the U.S had launched a Geronimo-like raid in these countries?"


-3°) "Would the Geronimo raid be legal a posteriori should Pakistan seek redress from the U.S?"


- 4°) "How much value would you grant to a text written by a Chinese lawyer explaining how legal is the occupation of Thibet by the Chinese army?"

------------

B
- 1°) "third states who's sovereignty was not violated have no standing to complain about a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty."

Was American sovereignty violated when Iraq invaded Koweit? What was the standing of the U.S to not only complain but to intervene then?


- 2°) "if Pakistan does not complain, there is no violation, since the international law rights of a state do not exist "in thin air" but only when a state chooses to exercise them"

Replace Pakistan by woman or nigger and violation by rape or whipping. L'affirmation tient-elle toujours?

Flocon a dit…

Hmmm... Negro may be too loaded here. Let's make it coloured man.

Pour ce qui concerne les réponses point par point, les unes après les autres de telle sorte que rien ne reste résolu avant d'avancer dans la démonstration ou le raisonnement, it's the way our Cartesian upbringing has fashioned our way of thinking and reasoning.

Comme en mathématiques ou en algèbre, un pas après l'autre sinon on court à l'échec.

Anijo a dit…

Pardon Flocon. Sorry if I wasted your time. Cela n'arrivera pas encore.

Flocon a dit…

Pourquoi dis-tu cela Anijo??? I'm not wasting my time in the least and I'm happy to exchange with you and SemperFidelis on this topic.

Another misunderstanding?

Anijo a dit…

Yes, perhaps a misunderstandng.

I figured you took me for a hick from the sticks not up to your superior level of Cartesian thinking and reasoning. I also recall some time ago SemperFi addressing some issues to other posters here who never responded to him point by point, but he left that alone.

And then I read this comment:
Replace Pakistan by woman or nigger and violation by rape or whipping. L'affirmation tient-elle toujours?

To compare the diplomacy between two governments to a woman or a 'nigger' goes too far Flocon, and your use of 'nigger' went way way too far and quite frankly I found it offensive.

Forgive me for not addressing point by point your other issues. I'm just not in the mood right now.

I should probably not even post this comment. Part of me says to think longer before posting and the other part says to go ahead and be honest, so here goes..

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

How can you possibly imagine I would take you for a hick??? Could it be me? Il y a de nouveau un gros malentendu là.

Ma formulation a donc été maladroite et je te présente mes excuses pour cela.

Il se trouve, tu as dû le remarquer, que je réponds toujours (il me semble) à chacun point par point à tout ce qui m'est dit.

Peut-être est-ce une vieille habitude de juriste mais puisque la conversation porte (de façon tout à fait amateur) sur des questions de droit, il ne me paraît pas possible de laisser derrière soi ou d'écarter sans les avoir examinés des points de possible contention.

Pour ce qui est de Descartes, il s'agit tout simplement de l'application des préceptes du Discours de la méthode.

Comme nous sommes entre adultes, je souhaitais discuter de façon ordonnée en suivant rigoureusement une ligne donnée. A la Spinoza, ordine geometrico demonstrata.

a geometric model in which axioms and propositions follow each other with logical necessity

Notre discussion n'en est pas à ce niveau bien sûr.

-----------

"I also recall some time ago SemperFi addressing some issues to other posters here who never responded to him point by point"

C'est arrivé récemment à Ned dont le père était un ancien Marine...

Je crois toujours avoir répondu à tous les points avancés par Semperfidelis dans de précédents échanges, particulièrement à l'automne dernier dans le billet Why I didn't shed a tear où beaucoup de questions m'étaient posées, très bien, mais dans lequel les questions que je posais moi restaient sans réponses.

No big deal mais un échange doit être réciproque. Ce ne peut être une personne questionnant une autre sans seemingly écouter les réponses tout en posant again and again de nouvelles questions.

It's only fair et c'est ainsi que je procède avec toi et SemperFidelis par exemple.

Flocon a dit…

Pour ce qui concerne l'emploi du N. word, j'ai corrigé dans le commentaire suivant parce que je sais combien plus chargé encore est le mot aux U.S qu'en France où il n'est d'ailleurs pas plus acceptable. L'Histoire est très différente aux États-Unis qu'en France et en Europe d'ailleurs.

(Pour info, Arnold the European -according to M. Dowd- bears a name which means Blacknigger...)

-----------

Le fait est que SemperFidelis a avancé une théorie qui me semble logiquement intenable (et qui tient d'ailleurs un peu de l'opposition réalisme/idéalisme).

"the international law rights of a state do not exist "in thin air" but only when a state chooses to exercise them."

Roughly: Les droits d'un État au regard du droit international n'existent pas en soi (par essence) mais uniquement dans la mesure où un État choisit de les exercer.

C'est la logique inhérente à cette théorie que je mets en doute. Indépendamment du contexte (la logique est mathématique et s'applique indépendamment de tout contexte possible) cela revient à dire que le droit de vote par exemple n'existe que dans la mesure où les citoyens votent.

Ce qui implique donc qu'il n'y a pas de droit de vote "in thin air" (ce que j'ai compris comme signifiant per se).

Quand j'ai recouru à l'image des femmes et du viol -admettons qu'elle était trop forte- je demandais si le droit d'une femme à ne pas être violée n'existait pas in thin air ou ne devenait réalité qu'à la condition que la femme exerce son droit.

Il en va de même l'image de l'esclave noir.

Le droit de ne pas être fouetté n'existe pas in thin air mais uniquement si l'esclave fait valoir son droit à ne pas être fouetté?

En résumé un droit n'existerait qu'à la condition d'être revendiqué.

En quelque sorte c'est une vue réaliste du droit (international ou pas) opposée à une vue idéaliste.

--------

Running a blog may be a good training for enhancing diplomatic skills. All the more when one is deprived of the basic feeling for diplomacy ;-)

Anijo a dit…

No big deal mais un échange doit être réciproque. Ce ne peut être une personne questionnant une autre sans seemingly écouter les réponses tout en posant again and again de nouvelles questions.

Oui, t'as raison Flocon. C'est exaspérant. Je comprends.

Pour info, Arnold the European -according to M. Dowd- bears a name which means Blacknigger...)

Yes, well, Dowd has no class and what she writes often offends me, and is the reason why I do not read her pathetic column.

Running a blog may be a good training for enhancing diplomatic skills. All the more when one is deprived of the basic feeling for diplomacy ;-)

Part of being friends is disagreements and misunderstandings and then speaking one's mind to clear things up.

Thank you for your measured and thoughtful response.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

I guess SemperFidelis reacted like you did to my comment which certainly wasn't meant to hurt. It's just that I thought a pause was needed for clarification.

And now I hope he will react as fairly as you did because I'm interested in reading the plan Semperfidels had in mind.

Also I now realise you (SemperFidelis) may have been hurt that I forestalled said plan and prematurely answered it.

Ah... the fine art of blogging without being offensive to anone.

--------

Is it me or is there a new profile on Facebook? ;-)

Anijo a dit…

Is it me or is there a new profile on Facebook? ;-)

Oui... lol.. (embarrassed face).

C'est DAD qui m'avait demandé de faire ça pour communiquer avec les mecs du bar du coin en Corrèze.. Mais vite fais, il y a déjà pas mal de personnes que je connais qui ont répondu!

Flocon a dit…

"C'est DAD qui m'avait demandé de faire ça"

Did you want to write "it's DAD who has asked me" or "it's DAD who had asked me"?

Tsk tsk tsk Anijo... ;-)

Anijo a dit…

Tsk tsk tsk Anijo... ;-)

When will I ever learn? ....

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon: I concede that a dialogue is more interesting than a monologue. So I will be happy to address your questions. But it will certainly take more than one post to do it, because they are all perceptive inquiries.

Permit me to lay a foundation. Because all of us here live under well-developed systems of domestic law (although they differ, as we have seen this past week), we tend to assume that all legal systems should work in the same way as does the law familiar to us at home. Unconsciously, we adopt the view that all legal systems should address themselves to the needs of and wrongs suffered by individual human beings. We also tend to assume the existence of certain centralized institutions responsible for making laws, adjudicating disputes about them, and enforcing them. So, in France, you enjoy a system with a legislature to make the laws, courts to settle your disputes about them, and police to enforce them. This well-developed system is capable of, and routinely does, enforce community rights and obligations on individuals. And these community rights are in addition to the rights of individuals. So, to use a current example, a woman who is raped in New York has individual rights against the rapist. She can choose to sue the rapist in a civil suit and recover damages. Or, she can accept a settlement from him. Or she can settle "out of court" for money or other favors. Or she can, for any number of reasons good and bad, simply elect to do nothing about it. If she chooses to sue, the case will be captioned "Woman v. Rapist." But the community, the State of New York, can enforce laws in the community interest, without any reference to the desires of the accuser. The State can obtain a criminal indictment against the accused rapist and the public prosecutor can pursue a criminal case against the accused. The woman cannot veto the State's decision to prosecute. She can be compelled to testify as a witness. This is because the prosecutor is pursuing a State (or community) interest that is considered very important, and independent of the woman's personal interests. This case will be captioned "New York v. Rapist." In California and some other states, the principle is even more clear, as the case would be "People v. Rapist."
Now, this is important, because the international legal system is completely different. There is no central power with the will and the ability to enforce the interests of the "world community." There is no world legislature to make laws, no world court with compulsory jurisdiction to enforce international norms, and no world police to enforce international norms. These statements are conditioned only by the most rudimentary and hazy developments since the advent of the UN Charter (which developments have had almost no practical impact on most states, and none at all on the five permanent members of the UN Security Council). These truths explain why the international legal system is profoundly different than the domestic legal systems in the West. Accordingly, what results from the operation of international law is usually frustrating to observers.
This one is already too long, so I will address your question A1 next time.
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

First of all I want to make sure there's no mistake here: When some of my comments may look offensive or disturbing please keep in mind that they're not meant to be so.

It all has to do with my clumsiness or that little "Je ne sais quoi" which makes exchanges from one language to another sometimes seem awkward and bizarre all together. Or simply I may unwillingly be rather brusque.

Also, regulars are my guests and I try to be as courteous as is the rule with them.

------------

Mutatis mutandis, your first paragraph, with the example of a woman being a victim, applies in France and presumably the rest of Europe where the State (le Ministère Public in France) must indict the perpetrator of a crime in the name of the "community" even if it goes against the wish of the victim.

For what I know, that was the case in the Polansky affair where the victim wanted to be let alone after all these years and she had mothered three.

Basically, the situation would be handed the same way in France by the Ministère public.

Another example that you may be aware of is the Dwarf tossing "game".

Both in New York and in France, even if the participant were willingly participating to the game, a superior authority ruled against their will in the name of superior motives.

---------

Your comments are never too long, just think of the name of the blog.

Will you allow me to humbly suggest you divide your text into several shorter paragraphs so that the salient points of your reasoning will be more immediately visible by your readers.

Shall I be as bold as to imagine it may be helpful to yourself in the sense that one has a better view of one's own work as seen from a certain distance?

Your comments are always strongly structured, clearly enunciated and a pleasure to read, inter alia for the intellectual challenge they bring along.

Flocon a dit…

I know I've been a bad boy when Anijo remains silent. I soon may be in for it again...

(Mais qu'est-ce que j'ai encore dit???)

Anijo a dit…

Mais non Flocon. Ne t'en fais pas. J'ai pas grand choses à dire, c'est tout. Je sens avoir rien dans la tête. I consider you a friend, and always will, even if you are a bad boy now and then ;). And I can also be a bad girl...

Flocon a dit…

Oh I get it!

You were kept busy with these guys.

Anijo a dit…

Yes! For awhile there I thought that Isner was going to defeat Rafa! :(

It went to five sets!

Thank you for this second view of Nadal. ☺

Ned Ludd a dit…

"Your comments are never too long, just think of the name of the blog."

Semper Fi, it is not necessary to follow the example of the kind author of this blog.

Sometimes less is more.

Flocon is right however that texts should be broken up into paragraphs of 3 or 4 sentences.

Ned Ludd a dit…

Anijo, I have long had doubts about Rafa and his physique. His musculature is quite different than most other players on the circuit. I wonder what his diet is.

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

"Sometimes less is more.

This is exactly what all my former girlfriends used to tell me. Are you helping me understand they were trying to confort me Ned?

Anonyme a dit…

Ned: Re the paragraphs, I have been concerned that the paragraphs took up bytes, and that using breaks would run me up against a limit on the space available for comments. If that isn't the case, I can paragraph with the best.

While we are at it, how about a marxist analysis of the notion of state sovereignty? Suitably divided into paragraphs, of course.
SemperFidelis

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon,

Didn't I already post this song by the Swallows, "It Ain't the Meat it's the Motion"?

MeatandMotion

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon,

Another one for you, "Sixty minute man" by the Dominoes.

sixtyminutema n

Flocon a dit…

Hmmmm... Now I know why they were one night stands. At long last I see the truth and it ain't pretty.

"It ain’t the meat it’s the motion
It’s the movement it isn’t the stock"


On dit ça, on dit ça...

Two years ago ZapPow linked to a song by a Jamaïcan group which stated quite otherwise. It had to do with Chinese sticks inter alia...

Which is all rather remote from a marxist analysis of the notion of State sovereignty.

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

Comments are limited to 4,096 bytes on Bloggler which usually permits to write rather long comments.

Now, if you think your points require more space, you may just split your comment in two or three parts like you've done before.

Flocon a dit…

Thanks for adding salt to the wound Ned :-(

Now you've ruined my day. Merci...

(Anyway, you seem to be quite knowledgeable in this particular field)

Anijo a dit…

Anijo, I have long had doubts about Rafa and his physique. His musculature is quite different than most other players on the circuit. I wonder what his diet is.

You can have your doubts. Me, I'll just enjoy this handsome man, his musculature, and the way he plays tennis. Speaking of diet, all that comes to mind is yummy yummy yummy.

While we are at it, how about a marxist analysis of the notion of state sovereignty? Suitably divided into paragraphs, of course.
SemperFidelis


lol

Which is all rather remote from a marxist analysis of the notion of State sovereignty.

LOL!

And after all the work that SemperFi put in with his response, all he gets is a discussion about meat and its motion.

Tsk tsk tsk...

However, at least the responses were all suitably divided into paragraphs and had links.

Flocon a dit…

It's not even 6 am in N.M and Anijo is already on the deck!

For good measure a link to this song would have had me totaly devastated.

"And after all the work that Flocon put in with his post, all he gets is a discussion about meat and its motion".

Speaking of which, I thought SemperFidelis had a plan about how Pakistan sovereignty had not be violated and many other points.

Also "I will address your question A1 next time"

Is the case closed?

Anijo a dit…

SemperFi may not have responded to A1 yet, but he provided quite a few responses to this thread which are not in the least about meat and its motion.

As to state sovereignty (Pakistan or Libya), it seems that it is the U.N. who decides, case closed.

Anijo a dit…

It's not even 6 am in N.M and Anijo is already on the deck!

Aye captain and I have unsheathed my sabre. ☺

Anijo a dit…

For good measure a link to this song would have had me totaly devastated.

Is it me or is there something that simply doesn't fit here?

Flocon a dit…

On ne peut pas mettre le Pakistan et la Libye sur le même plan.

- Pour le Pakistan, l'ONU est à 1.000% étrangère à l'opération Géronimo.

- Pour la Libye, ce sont les pays meneurs de cette guerre (France, la G.B et les U.S) qui en font à leur guise, l'ONU une fois encore n'est pas responsable de la façon dont ses membres appliquent ses résolutions.

C'est regrettable mais comme l'écrivait SemperFidelis, il n'existe pas d'instance internationale dont les décisions s'appliquent obligatoirement et avec une autorité telle qu'elle puisse les faire respecter.

--------

"I have unsheathed my sabre. ☺"

Yeah, I see and I fear for my well being today.

--------

"Is it me or is there something that simply doesn't fit here?"

Yes, I should have opened a specific thread in the Espace détente department.

Anijo a dit…

Yes, I should have opened a specific thread in the Espace détente department.

Actually Flocon, I meant that as a joke. You know, 10 inches, doesn't fit... Well, I don't really want to have to explain this..

'ONU une fois encore n'est pas responsable de la façon dont ses membres appliquent ses résolutions.

Okay, let's just stay with Libya. Gaddafi is being targeted and his country is being bombed and the justification for Libya not having a right to sovereignty is that this was a U.N. resolution. So I take it that if the U.N. had agreed on the raid to get Bin Laden, then it would have been a different story?

Flocon a dit…

"Oh I see" said embarrassed innocent Flocon totally unaware of these girlie things...

---------

"I take it that if the U.N. had agreed on the raid to get Bin Laden, then it would have been a different story?"

Definitively yes here. Of course the very nature of the Geronimo raid made it impossible to be asked for approval by the U.N.

Anijo a dit…

Definitively yes here.

Oh I see. So it's not a matter of morality vis-à-vis the raid on Bin Laden's compound. It's just a matter of legality. If the U.N. had approved it, it wouldn't suddenly be the right thing to do, just the approved thing to do.

Flocon a dit…

"So it's not a matter of morality vis-à-vis the raid on Bin Laden's compound."

Ben non. Le droit et la moralité ne font pas bon ménage.

"If the U.N. had approved it, it wouldn't suddenly be the right thing to do, just the approved thing to do."

Ben oui. As you write yourself, "It's just a matter of legality"

"I don't discuss the morality of the raid" is what is to be read in the post.

I don't remember ever writing in the post or in the comments that the Geronimo raid was immoral. It was just a matter of State sovereignty (inter alia), tenets of democracy and the respect of the rule of the law.

Anonyme a dit…

Turning from the subject of Mr. Rafa's muscular advantages, with reluctance on the part of some correspondents, to be sure, and abandoning an obtuse discussion on the relative merits of dimensions and motion, we return to the far more rewarding examination of Pakistani state sovereignty.

The absence of a super-national legislature, court, and police leads to some characteristics of international law which are often unappreciated.

First - the principle of reciprocity. Assume state A has a treaty with state B, under which both states agree to lay no tax on goods from the contracting states. If state A breaches the treaty and imposes a tax on goods imported from state B, state B is relieved of its obligation under the treaty and may tax goods imported from state A. This feature of traditional international law is still valid today, except for that very small part of the law dealing with egregious violations of human rights (hereinafter EVOHR).

Second - The principle of bilateralism. Except for EVOHR since 1945, violations of international law link only the offended state and and the offending state. Except for EVOHR, there are no international "community rights" to be enforced. So, in the example above, state C has no standing to complain about A's breach of the treaty with B, and will not be heard in the International Court of Justice or any other forum.

I could move on from here to the conclusion, but instead I think I will click on the Youtube link to "NBA Cheerleaders."
Distracted,
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

SemperFidelis,

- 1°) Your first point has nothing specific to international relations, it's just a reminder of the basics of law : treaties between States are just like contracts between individuals or corporations.

When one of the contractants breaches the provisions of any contract, the other contractant is then freed of its obligations and the contract is considered nul and void (nul et non avenu).

The contractant who deems the breach of any contract has been detrimental to him/her/it (corporation or State) is entitled to compensation and will sue the "renegade" contractor for damages unless he asks the court to force the contractor to stick and obey the provisions of the contract.

It has been the case since Hammourabi and I fail to see what all this has to do with Pakistan sovereignty.

- 2°) Le bilatéralisme n'a rien à voir vec le respect de l'intégrité territoriale d'un État qui est un principe fondamental du droit international.

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory

Any which way you turn it, the Geronimo raid was an obvious and undisputable violation of this principle.

"violations of international law link only the offended state and the offending state"

How then did the U.S justify its intervention in the Iraki/Koweit conflict of 1991 for example? The same goes for France of course and all the countries which took part to this war against Irak.

"Except for EVOHR, there are no international "community rights" to be enforced"

As far as I know there were no EVOHR when Irak invaded Koweit.

International law is very flexible indeed and is used according to the needs and possibilities of the signatories of treaties.

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon: Your link to the Wiki article on sovereignty is instructive. Note that sovereignty is a quality (or an attribute) of statehood. It must be maintained effectively though the means available to the political organization in question, if that organization is to be a state.

It is not a "right" in the sense that I have a right to be free from robbery on the public highway. Weak or strong, rich or poor, if I am robbed and it comes to the attention of the public magistrate, the robber will be pursued and punished by the community.

Except for the very limited role of the UN, there are no international counterparts to the community interest and public magistrate we find in our domestic states. With the exception of the UN Charter, which we will discuss, there is no international "law" which gives a political organization a "right" to sovereignty. Sovereignty remains, for the most part, a bilateral matter between states.

This is analogous to our personal contract and property rights vis-a-vis others. If my neighbor walks across my field without my prior permission, I have at that point an inchoate right to seek damages. I have to do certain things to perfect that right. If I do nothing about it, I may eventually lose even that inchoate right through the operation of waiver.

The universal adoption of the UN Charter has made an important, but narrow, change to the classical international law that applies here.

SemperFidelis

Anonyme a dit…

The universal adoption of the UN Charter makes a very significant, but narrow, change in the classical international law. Whether there has been any practical change is another matter. And,to be fair, this post refers to ideals, not practice.

In Article 2, states agree to abide to a set of fundamental principles, or international community values. And in Chapter VII, they agree to submit to enforcement of those values by the Security Council.

Regarding the US raid on OBL, the relevant provision is Article 2.4, the English text of which is as follows:

//All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.//

The brief intrusion of US forces in the OBL raid did not affect the territorial integrity of Pakistan. No occupation or annexation of territory was attempted. Likewise, no effort was made to interfere with the political independence of the Pakistani state.

Under these circumstances, the international community values agreed to in the UN Charter were not violated. The matter does not rise to the level of conduct prohibited by the Charter. It remains within the orbit of traditional international law. The raid may have interfered with Pakistan's jus excludendi alios, but that remains a matter between the US and Pakistan.

Pakistan has all the peaceful countermeasures available under Chapter VI of the Charter. Diplomatic notes. A stern demarche. Expelling US citizens from Pakistan. Withdrawing their ambassador. Breaking off diplomatic relations. Trade sanctions.

Pakistan has not taken a single step against the US. In fact, recently they have allowed CIA officers to inspect the OBL compound and collect additional intelligence materials.

What are the legal implications of this state conduct?
SemperFidelis

Anijo a dit…

And,to be fair, this post refers to ideals, not practice.

Hi SemperFi!

That's what I thought. However, I guess now we are simply discussing the legality of these matters.

I see that you are busy (and have a life lol) and thus you continue with this thread when you find the time.

Pakistan has not taken a single step against the US. In fact, recently they have allowed CIA officers to inspect the OBL compound and collect additional intelligence materials.

What are the legal implications of this state conduct?


Flocon previously countered with an example of a woman being raped (State vs Man accused of raping woman) and the state pursuing the matter), but we are not discussing this particular aspect of law. We're discussing international law. If Pakistan wished to charge the U.S., they could. Could there be such a thing as International Community (U.N.) vs United States on behalf of Pakistan, even if Pakistan has not voiced a concern?

Anonyme a dit…

Anijo:

//Could there be such a thing as International Community (U.N.) vs United States on behalf of Pakistan, even if Pakistan has not voiced a concern?//

In the form of a judicial resolution, I think not. The UN International Court of Justice, as I understand its rules, would not hear the complaints of third states that the US had violated Pakistani sovereignty. Pakistan would have to make the complaint. In any case, the US simply need not agree to submit the case to the ICJ, and the ICJ would unable to issue a binding decision.

Third states could complain to the UN Security Council and seek a Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against the US, or even the use of armed force against the US. But the US would certainly veto any such resolutions.

As a practical matter, the five permanent members of the Security Council are immune from the enforcement mechanics of the UN Charter. They just vote against any sanctions directed at them and the resolutions don't pass.

This is the reality of the New World Order set up by the US, the UK, and the USSR at the end of World War II. They could set up that order because, at that moment in time, due to the efforts of the sailor in the picture and other men and women like him, the victors stood astride the world like giants. At that moment, they could dictate an international community structure and enforce it.

But we have not spoken at all about Flocon's original point. What lesson did the Obama administration teach "developing natins" by executing the OBL raid?
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

There are now far too many items in your comments SemperFidelis for me to follow them.

- About sovereignty which isn't a right but an attibute. Said attribute entails the right for its "owner" to protect it.

- "If my neighbor walks across my field without my prior permission, I have at that point an inchoate right to seek damages."

This wouldn't work in Sweden or Norway where private properties aren't that private that passers by are allowed to cross them without prior permission of the owner.

What chances would an American farmer have to sue for damages someone walking across h/h fields?

- "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations"

I underline: in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

I already asked the question:

"Would the Chinese (say) abduct a Chinese dissenter from the US without Washington being informed in any way, I wonder if the US would accept the Chinese argument that American sovereignty had not been violated because said dissenter is a criminal under Chinese law and that Washington was being uncooperative in not delivering the Chinese dissent to the Chinese autorities.

Question remained unanswered.

How would you interpret a Chinese comment such as : "The brief intrusion of Chinese forces in the dissenter raid did not affect the territorial integrity of the U.S. of America."?

For some reason I suspect your lecture of International law and of the article 2.4 of the U.N charter may be somehow different.

You may be interested in reading this piece: Five myths about Pakistan.

Flocon a dit…

Also, the distinction you rightly make between the existence of national sovereignty as an attribute not entailing a right to sovereignty is very much in line with the Is-ought problem that D. Hume enunciated.

The article is rather long but quite interesting as usual.

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon:
//How would you interpret a Chinese comment such as : "The brief intrusion of Chinese forces in the dissenter raid did not affect the territorial integrity of the U.S. of America."?

For some reason I suspect your lecture of International law and of the article 2.4 of the U.N charter may be somehow different.//

Assuming the facts were the same, i.e. that the Chinese dissenter seized by the Chinese in the US was leader of an international terrorist organization, and that he had directed bombings that had killed thousands of Chinese civilians in China and in Africa, and that he had publicly and often urged his followers to kill Chinese citizens wherever they could be found, and that he was being protected by the CIA in a safe house in the US, and that during his stay in the US he continued to direct terrorist plots against China and her allies, and that the US insisted that the dissenter was not in the US, and that the dissenter raid lasted less than an hour...

Given all of the above, my lecture on the applicable international law would be exactly the same.

The Chinese dissenter raid would not amount to the kind of armed attack that directly threatened the territorial integrity or political independence of the US, and was therefore not a violation of Article 2.4. Thus, the US would not be legally able to conduct AFTER-THE-FACT armed reprisals against China or her ships at sea under Article 51.

But all the peaceful countermeasures available to Pakistan would also be available to President Obama. For example, he would be acting legally if he sold the menu of advanced weapons to Taiwan that they are eagerly seeking and willing to buy for cash. That would probably only be the beginning. We could sign mutual defense agreements with China's neighbors, like Vietnam (which they are eager to conclude).

In short, the legal analysis is the same, if the facts are the same. But the peaceful countermeasures would probably be very, very different.

In the event, it is all up to Pakistan.

Etiam in pugna
SemperFidelis

Flocon a dit…

As you rightfully wrote above "this post refers to ideals, not practice."

The international law you're refering to is all but a strictly-to-be-implemented set of rules as the current situation in Libya shows.

It's always a matter of interpretation according to any historical/cultural given context.

Even when a civilian airplane flies accross the airspace of any country it is regarded as a violation of said country's sovereignty whether the crossing was intentional or not.

So when any country masterminds a military raid in another country without the later being informed -even less participating- it is a blatant violation of said country's sovereignty, any which way we turn it.

That Pakistan didn't really complain makes sense since it isn't in the position to do so. And even if it were what outcome could it expect?

Legaly speaking, defending the indefensible is impossible although lawyers are very highly paid for that.

Now was the US moraly entitled to act the way it did is defensible but morality has nothing to do with law as you know.

"Etiam in pugna"

Je vois, je vois...

(Glad that this little post raised your interest)

Flocon a dit…

Here is a comment I read in the NYT about the relations between the US and Pakistan. It seems particularly related to the exchange we've been having on this page.

"Let's look at this situation through different lenses, if we can. Imagine that Pakistan had sent their military special forces across the border from Mexico into Texas to raid a house in order to assassinate someone they considered a terrorist, and that Pakistan had not notified the American government about it. Additionally, imagine that the Pakistani government afterwards did not apologize, but had complained openly about the lack of "cooperation" of Americans. Imagine also that some weeks before the Texas raid, that a non-governmental mercenary posing as a Pakistani government spy had assassinated several American citizens and that Pakistan had successfully bullied America into letting the assassin go free. How would we expect Americans to respond to these provocations? Well, switch the names of the two countries around and you can start to see how the Pakistanis reasonably are viewing the current situation. America treats Pakistan not as an independent nation with rights equal to our own, but as a client state that must do as they are told. Not a way to "win their hearts and minds," is it? We wouldn't put up with it if they treated us this way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? How can other nations view us as anything other than arrogant?"

The person posts from Manhattan which of course is no evidence that h/s's American but yet...