Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (58924)	11/26/2002 8:42:06 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

I think you want UN charter to change so it allows for intervention in other countries in cases of tyranny and/or genocide. Is this right? No. The argument is that there is unnecessary reliance on the UN Charter. And that where the UN is deficient in dealing with humanitarian crimes there is sufficient international law to cover unilateral measures countries may take to intervene in such situations as in the ex-yugoslavia example or Iraq. The state of such law is not yet highly developed but there is a body of international law covering such things as war crimes, genocide, torture. And there is some international law dealing with unilateral measures and urgent unilateral measures. There is so far not much highly developed law regarding measures against these crimes within countries. Nonetheless there is some, and Murase in his paper describes as I mention in my previous post some applications. So far this is 'ambiguous' law in that there is not really a great body of stuff for lawyers to work on. There haven't been a lot of recent interventions of this type and so there haven't been a lot of court cases, etc for lawyers to refer to or see application of existing law from which to derive 'principles' applicable to such cases. Murase derives some parameters which in the present state of international law might provide sufficient grounds for an intervention such as in the Kosovo or Iraq examples. They are efficacy, legitimacy and good faith. Efficacy: the intervention does indeed correct the situation. Legitimacy: the action is endorsed in some way. Good faith: the intervention is for the purpose proclaimed. He gives examples in parts of the paper I quoted. You should read it. The URL is in my last post. As far as the UN Charter is concerned, it has to find its proper place in international law; it is a treaty and not a world constitution. This is not to minimize it but it is not the general law for everything international. I answered 'no' to your question I quoted above because the UN doesn't have right now, the means physical or legal, to deal with such affairs and also, and this might be more important, there is not a sufficient history of intervention to indicate what might be a reasonable reform of the Charter, Security Counsel, etc. I hope this helps. Read Murase's paper and tell me where I got it wrong.