Re: Such as, "non-interventionism"?! Archived Message
Posted by Gerard on July 12, 2019, 8:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Such as, "non-interventionism"?!"
Ah! So not legally binding? Non-interventionism was supposed to be. apologies..this,"compact" is not legally binding and it is clearly meant to shift gaze away from the broken contract I referred to. It is a; "post-Yugoslavia event", the reputation and standing of the U.N has already been damaged, such non-binding policy commitments therefore commit the grievous sin of failing to properly reflect the UN's core values..however, only by protecting the core values can the UN have any relevance therefore one is obligated to refer back to the breach of article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter; "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." "The UN Charter The UN Charter is legally binding on all United Nations member states, including all members of NATO, because they have each signed it. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force by UN member states to resolve disputes, but with two specific exceptions to this general prohibition: 1. The first exception is set forth in Chapter VII--the UN Security Council has the power to authorize the use of force in order to fulfill its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. In particular, Article 42 states that should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.[4] 2. Article 51 contains the second specific exception to the prohibition on the use of force--the right to self-defence. In particular, Article 51 states that 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, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.[4] NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council to use force in Yugoslavia. Further, NATO did not claim that an armed attack occurred against another state. However, its advocates contend that NATO actions were consistent with the United Nations Charter because the UN Charter prohibits unprovoked attacks only by individual states. The principal legal issue remains, however, since NATO as such is not a member state of the UN, whether the member states of NATO, the United States and the European powers that sent armed forces to attack as part of the NATO bombing campaign, violated the UN Charter by attacking a fellow UN member state: (1) in the absence of UN Security Council authorization, and (2) in the absence of an attack or a threat of imminent attack on them. The United Nations considers NATO to be a "regional arrangement" under UN Article 52, which allows it to deal with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. However, the UN policy on military intervention by regional arrangements in UN Article 53 states the Security Council can, where appropriate, "utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. However, no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia "It is concluded that the involvement was neither neutral nor impartial." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13533310108413878?journalCode=finp20 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51096568.pdf Martial law...all since must be seen in the light of this.. So yes the, "compact" is partial, lilly-livered and likely to prove ineffective..a sticking-plaster at best.. Hard-cases making bad law...!
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - johnlilburne July 4, 2019, 10:40 pm
- Re: Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - turtleman July 5, 2019, 3:38 am
- Hello Katie, didn't realise you posted on this board - nm - psingh July 5, 2019, 6:55 am
- Re: Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - johnlilburne July 5, 2019, 3:28 pm
- Re: Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - Rich July 5, 2019, 4:39 pm
- Re: Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - brooks July 5, 2019, 6:37 pm
- Priorities - Gerard July 6, 2019, 10:30 pm
- Re: Katie Hopkins gets warm reception as she calls Islam ‘single biggest threat’ to Europe - Gerard July 6, 2019, 10:37 pm
|
|