The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[swirly]

If you would care to point me to where you are getting this, it would be appreciated. A quick read of the article reveals no such refutation. Perhaps its in the footnotes somewhere.

I'm not wishing to take either side, but a quick browse did lead me to a footnote that may be something he is referring to. Specifically the second paragraph, but I'm including the whole footnote for some vague context.

48 See JOHNSON, supra note 1, at 24. For example, the criterion of just cause permits a
nation to respond in self-defense when confronted with an external armed attack. See
supra note 46 and accompanying text (discussing just cause). This parallels the general
concepts embodied in Articles 2 and 51 of the U.N. Charter. Article 2(3) of the U.N.
Charter states: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 3. Article 2(4) notes: “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.” Id. art. 2, para. 4. The first sentence of Article 51 of the U.N.
Charter, however, adds: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense 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.” Id. art. 51.
The concept of proper authority is interesting and debatable. Can the United States,
acting unilaterally, be a proper authority? Must the United Nations Security Council
sanction every action? See JOHNSON, supra note 1, at 58-63 (observing that the United
Nations lacks the cohesion, sovereignty, and chain of command necessary to be a
competent proper authority under the just war tradition); Weigel, supra note 29 (arguing
that prior U.N. authority to use force is not required before a state acts); see also TEMES,
supra note 14, at 15-16 (arguing that although the term proper authority may have once
accounted “for the idea that a Just War might also be undertaken by, as examples,
revolutionary movements, breakaway provinces, clans, tribal groups, or religious sects”
the form of war today in some way always involves nations and nations have become the
proper authorities). But see Dinstein, supra note 31, at 879 (arguing that the Security
Council is the only proper authority absent self-defense).

That could be read to say that the UN is not a valid proper authority and so things should be only considered in terms of the nation in question itself (in this case the US). Course the last line also is somebody saying the UN is the only proper authority. My point is more that there seems to be disagreement outside of those on this forum of if the UN is a valid proper authority. If you side with the people saying the proper authority is the US then you argueing in regard to the UN being the proper authority isn't going to count for much. Once again, not saying where I side personally. Just explaining that I can see where kandrathe could get some justification for saying that the use of the UN as a proper authority is disputed.