06-08-2004, 05:46 PM
"I don't think the Charter is so very clear in all aspects, BTW. It includes several statements that speak of fundamental human rights, and on the other hand, it guarantuess sovereignity for every dictatorship, no matter what it does to the inhabitants of its country. There is alot in the Charter that leaves much room for interpretation. And there obviously is a strong tension between individual and collective rights."
I couldn't agree more. But it leaves no question as to who is allowed to pursuse the claims about such tensions. The Security Council is the *only body authorized to use force* except in cases of self defense.
Now, the immunity a veto gives you is impressive indeed, I'll grant. You can't be tried. You can't even be substantively accused. But the English of the charter is clear as day as to what it is supposed to forbid in terms of war: any offensive action not authorized by the council.
If the USSR pulled off this kind of crap in the middle of the cold war, there would have been screaming to high heaven about it, not hair-splitting arguments about how their veto prevents it from being illegal under international law.
Jester
I couldn't agree more. But it leaves no question as to who is allowed to pursuse the claims about such tensions. The Security Council is the *only body authorized to use force* except in cases of self defense.
Now, the immunity a veto gives you is impressive indeed, I'll grant. You can't be tried. You can't even be substantively accused. But the English of the charter is clear as day as to what it is supposed to forbid in terms of war: any offensive action not authorized by the council.
If the USSR pulled off this kind of crap in the middle of the cold war, there would have been screaming to high heaven about it, not hair-splitting arguments about how their veto prevents it from being illegal under international law.
Jester