Is breach of UN resolutions sufficient grounds for war?

[iain]

Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, said this morning that he felt that, even with all we know now, the war with Iraq was justified solely on the grounds that Iraq was in clear, material breach of UN resolutions.

I'm suspicious about this. Is it really supported by international law that being in breach of a UN resolution gives other countries the right/duty to invade you and overthrow your government? Is it a good thing that the British Government is taking this attitude. Which other countries should Britain now be seeking to invade on this basis?

This seems to sit very badly with the American feeling that the UN is not very relevant. If this is true, the UN has the power to legalise the overthrow of governments which would seem to make it very relevant indeed.

[Some Friggin Guy]

If I understand it correctly, breach of a UN mandate gives the UN the right to take action, though not the individual UN member-states.

[richardm]

Iraq is a particularly tangled case, though. I think I'm correct in saying that it can also be argued that it was in breach of a cease-fire agreement, and that it was simply a resumption of previous hostilities (which, in fact, had never really completely stopped in the first place).

On the question of overthrowing governments if UN resolutions are breached: Well, it's the most extreme end of the scale, certainly. But if you can't take action if resolutions are breached, then what is the point of making them ?

[iain]

Originally posted by richardm
Iraq is a particularly tangled case, though. I think I'm correct in saying that it can also be argued that it was in breach of a cease-fire agreement, and that it was simply a resumption of previous hostilities (which, in fact, had never really completely stopped in the first place).Maybe, but I haven't heard anyone in the UK government making that argument.

On the question of overthrowing governments if UN resolutions are breached: Well, it's the most extreme end of the scale, certainly. But if you can't take action if resolutions are breached, then what is the point of making them ? But what actions are appropriate and who decides who can take them? For example, if Israel was in breach of UN resolutions, would that make it legal for other middle-eastern countries to invade and overthrow the Israeli government?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm
Iraq is a particularly tangled case, though. I think I'm correct in saying that it can also be argued that it was in breach of a cease-fire agreement, and that it was simply a resumption of previous hostilities (which, in fact, had never really completely stopped in the first place).
True, but as the first Gulf War was carried out under UN mandate, it would be up to the UN to decide this.
On the question of overthrowing governments if UN resolutions are breached: Well, it's the most extreme end of the scale, certainly. But if you can't take action if resolutions are breached, then what is the point of making them ?
It's in the distinction between "serious consequences" and "all necessary means". Breach of UN security resolutions doesn't automatically justify force, because those resolutions don't automatically sanction force. And if countries are going to use UN resolutions as a pretext to act outside of the auspices of the UN, then what's the point of making those resolutions in the first place?

[Ashi]

I would suggest that Jack Straw is correct. This is the official position of the U.S. government as well.

1. After the first Gulf war, Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions (1991) that are listed here http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/ as the conditions for a cease-fire.

2. Iraq consistently did not fulfill its obligations concerning the conditions for the cease-fire. There are examples such as this http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981228/1998122833.html where Iraqi military fired upon UN aircraft and there is also the failures listed by Hans Blix http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/ among other actual, documented, factual evidence that Iraq was breaking the conditions of the original cease-fire as agreed upon by various UN resolutions such as resolution 1115 (1997) which was accepted by all members of the Security Council

from 1115
"....1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);..."

3. UN resolution 1441 was drafted after over a decade of Iraq blatantly refusing to fulfill the above mentioned conditions. This resolution states that Iraq is in clear material breach and was unanimously signed by every nation on the UNSC. Prior UN resolutions such as 687 authorized the US and Great Britain (as a Member States) to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance. The US Congress approved use of military force after 1441.

from 1441
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Ashi
I would suggest that Jack Straw is correct. This is the official position of the U.S. government as well.

1. After the first Gulf war, Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions (1991) that are listed here http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/ as the conditions for a cease-fire.

2. Iraq consistently did not fulfill its obligations concerning the conditions for the cease-fire. There are examples such as this http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981228/1998122833.html where Iraqi military fired upon UN aircraft and there is also the failures listed by Hans Blix http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/ among other actual, documented, factual evidence that Iraq was breaking the conditions of the original cease-fire as agreed upon by various UN resolutions such as resolution 1115 (1997) which was accepted by all members of the Security Council

from 1115
"....1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);..."

3. UN resolution 1441 was drafted after over a decade of Iraq blatantly refusing to fulfill the above mentioned conditions. This resolution states that Iraq is in clear material breach and was unanimously signed by every nation on the UNSC. Prior UN resolutions such as 687 authorized the US and Great Britain (as a Member States) to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance. The US Congress approved use of military force after 1441.

from 1441
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

While Iraq was in breach of the mandates, it would be up to the UN as an organization to authorize the use of force, not specific member nations.

It should also be noted that the no-fly zones were not UN mandated, but mandated by the US and UK, therefore where not within the mandate of any UN resolution and were, for all in tents and purposes, illegal.

[Ashi]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

While Iraq was in breach of the mandates, it would be up to the UN as an organization to authorize the use of force, not specific member nations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read the resolutions that I linked to. Various resolutions specifically state that "Member States" are authorized to use "all necessary means" to uphold the UN resolutions. It is very clear.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

It should also be noted that the no-fly zones were not UN mandated, but mandated by the US and UK, therefore where not within the mandate of any UN resolution and were, for all in tents and purposes, illegal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The no-fly zones obviously fall under the catagory of "all necessary means" and therefore are authorized bu the UNSC. Please read the actual resolutions.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ashi
Please read the resolutions that I linked to. Various resolutions specifically state that "Member States" are authorized to use "all necessary means" to uphold the UN resolutions. It is very clear.
No it's not; Resolution 1441 quotes Resolution 678 which authorised force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A new resolution would have to be drawn up to authorise force against Iraq because Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait so 678 doesn't apply. 1441 actually end with the threat of "serious consequences", not "all necessary means", so it's not an automatic mandate for war.

The no-fly zone can only be argued indirectly from the "all necessary means" clause, because it's ostensibly about protecting the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north, neither of which have anything to do with securing Kuwait from Iraqi aggression.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

No it's not; Resolution 1441 quotes Resolution 678 which authorised force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A new resolution would have to be drawn up to authorise force against Iraq because Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait so 678 doesn't apply. 1441 actually end with the threat of "serious consequences", not "all necessary means", so it's not an automatic mandate for war.


War is a "serious consequence". Therefor the action was justified.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony


War is a "serious consequence". Therefor the action was justified. Can you point to somewhere where this is defined, or is it just one possible interpretation? Genocide is a "serious consequence" but I doubt the resolution could be interpreted as giving anyone the right to commit genocide in Iraq.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
Can you point to somewhere where this is defined, or is it just one possible interpretation? Genocide is a "serious consequence" but I doubt the resolution could be interpreted as giving anyone the right to commit genocide in Iraq.


That goes to show the idiocy of the UN.

[richardm]

Originally posted by iain
Maybe, but I haven't heard anyone in the UK government making that argument.


True! And I must admit that it is something that I've heard, and therefore may very well be untrue.


But what actions are appropriate and who decides who can take them? For example, if Israel was in breach of UN resolutions, would that make it legal for other middle-eastern countries to invade and overthrow the Israeli government?

No, because there isn't an existing UN authorisation to use force in place against Israel.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony



That goes to show the idiocy of the UN. ?

How does that one work. I realise that in the US all legal language is wholly unambiguous, which is why lawyers in the US are all so poor with nothing to argue about.

All I'm asking is whether the definition of "serious consequences" to include waging war has a basis in international law or whether it's just something that's been made up.

[iain]

Originally posted by richardm No, because there isn't an existing UN authorisation to use force in place against Israel. [/B]As I understand it, the majority of legal opinion is that this is also the case with Iraq; and this is also what a majority of UN security council members believed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by iain
Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, said this morning that he felt that, even with all we know now, the war with Iraq was justified solely on the grounds that Iraq was in clear, material breach of UN resolutions.

I'm suspicious about this. Is it really supported by international law that being in breach of a UN resolution gives other countries the right/duty to invade you and overthrow your government? Is it a good thing that the British Government is taking this attitude. Which other countries should Britain now be seeking to invade on this basis?

This seems to sit very badly with the American feeling that the UN is not very relevant. If this is true, the UN has the power to legalise the overthrow of governments which would seem to make it very relevant indeed.

UNSC Res 687 was the basis for the cease fire of the first Gulf War. Since a "cease fire" is predicated upon fulfilling the requirements of said cease fire,..if a nation breaks the agreement, then the cease fire simply ends and the original war can fire back up. The invasion of 2003 was merely the last chapter of Gulf War I.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


While Iraq was in breach of the mandates, it would be up to the UN as an organization to authorize the use of force, not specific member nations.

It should also be noted that the no-fly zones were not UN mandated, but mandated by the US and UK, therefore where not within the mandate of any UN resolution and were, for all in tents and purposes, illegal.

Bull. If the no-fly zones, etc , were illegal, please site the relevant law which was broken.

-z

[Ashi]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK

No it's not; Resolution 1441 quotes Resolution 678 which authorised force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A new resolution would have to be drawn up to authorise force against Iraq because Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait so 678 doesn't apply. 1441 actually end with the threat of "serious consequences", not "all necessary means", so it's not an automatic mandate for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


as I posted earlier...........

from 1441
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

It is very clear to me that it says "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660".

I have never stated that 1441 was a "mandate" for war. What I suggested was that Jack Straw was correct when he said the war with Iraq was justified solely on the grounds that Iraq was in clear, material breach of UN resolutions.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by iain
?
All I'm asking is whether the definition of "serious consequences" to include waging war has a basis in international law or whether it's just something that's been made up.

I think the phrase is intentionally vague, I don't think it has a set definition. Many take it to mean war, and war is certainly not excluded from the phrase, but I think the French signed on to the wording hoping that they could later argue it didn't mean war. They lost that gambit - we decided it did, and the UN hasn't actually tried to refute that.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I think the phrase is intentionally vague, I don't think it has a set definition. Many take it to mean war, and war is certainly not excluded from the phrase, but I think the French signed on to the wording hoping that they could later argue it didn't mean war. They lost that gambit - we decided it did, and the UN hasn't actually tried to refute that.

Which of course points up the UN's irrelevancy. The phrase is intentionally vague in order to make more nations sign onto it. The nations that signed it are now free to interpret it any way they want. Some see authorization for total war, some see authorization for nothing at all save a few harsh words....maybe.

Useless, in other words. The whole resolution merely resolves to issue vague threats which could be safely laughed at by Saddam. As usual. So who can blame him for laughing? How do we ever know when the UN is serious? Easy,...they are never serious when it comes to actually loading guns and fighting in a war.

Perhaps if we'd just left the UN out of it, and the US had sent a very serious envoy to Saddam laying out just what was about to happen to him? But he'd likely have laughed at that too. With such a long history of US appeasement forced by the UN itself, he'd never have believed we'd have the balls to go and get him.

-z

[iain]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Which of course points up the UN's irrelevancy. The phrase is intentionally vague in order to make more nations sign onto it. The nations that signed it are now free to interpret it any way they want. Some see authorization for total war, some see authorization for nothing at all save a few harsh words....maybe.

Useless, in other words. The whole resolution merely resolves to issue vague threats which could be safely laughed at by Saddam. As usual. So who can blame him for laughing? How do we ever know when the UN is serious? Easy,...they are never serious when it comes to actually loading guns and fighting in a war.
I think this would be a very fair comment, if it weren't for the minor detail that the UN approach was working. With the world communicty working through the UN and maintaining a military presence, we had achieved a situation in which Iraq had no WMDs and a weak army, so posed no significant threat to the region or the wider world and had not embarked on any mass killings since the uprising fiasco in the early 90s. Sure things were a very long way perfect, but things were moving in the right direction.

We now have a situation where Iraq is being split apart by factional infighting, thousands are dead from the war and more being killed by terrorists almost daily. I guess things might work out for the best in the long run, but history is rather against it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


War is a "serious consequence". Therefor the action was justified.

The UN has a very specific way of wording its resolutions to be clear on what it means. "Serious consequence" is a general warning; "all means necessary" means armed intervention.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ashi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK

No it's not; Resolution 1441 quotes Resolution 678 which authorised force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A new resolution would have to be drawn up to authorise force against Iraq because Iraqi forces are no longer in Kuwait so 678 doesn't apply. 1441 actually end with the threat of "serious consequences", not "all necessary means", so it's not an automatic mandate for war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


as I posted earlier...........

from 1441
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

It is very clear to me that it says "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660".

I have never stated that 1441 was a "mandate" for war.
What you said was:Various resolutions specifically state that "Member States" are authorized to use "all necessary means" to uphold the UN resolutions. It is very clear.

"all necessary means" comes from 678 which authorises force to, as you note, uphold resolution 660 - the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. it's not a carte blanche for whatever action any particular country feels is justified. As there's no longer Iraqi forces in Kuwait, 678 is redundant.

What I suggested was that Jack Straw was correct when he said the war with Iraq was justified solely on the grounds that Iraq was in clear, material breach of UN resolutions.
Straw's argument is that the sum of Iraq's violations is sufficient justification for action; this is different to arguing these violations in and of themselves automatically give grounds for action, because the resolutions in question do not specify what action should take place. Tracing them back to 678 isn't helpful, because as I detail above, 678 is redundant.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by iain:
I think this would be a very fair comment, if it weren't for the minor detail that the UN approach was working. With the world communicty working through the UN and maintaining a military presence, we had achieved a situation in which Iraq had no WMDs and a weak army, so posed no significant threat to the region or the wider world and had not embarked on any mass killings since the uprising fiasco in the early 90s. Sure things were a very long way perfect, but things were moving in the right direction.

But was this apparent at the time? IIRC Hans Blix never said that Iraq had no WMD, and neither did Saddam's behaviour suggest that.

[iain]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


But was this apparent at the time? IIRC Hans Blix never said that Iraq had no WMD, and neither did Saddam's behaviour suggest that. I think that at the time nobody knew. There was obviously a lot of wishful thinking and people wanting there to be WMDs - hence Powell's UN presentation, explaining all those pictures that we weren't clever enough to understand; not to mention people interpreting Saddam's denial of WMD ownership as clear evidence that he had some.

Also remember that the weapons inspectors were being bad-mouthed by Washington for their failure to find the WMDs which we "knew" Saddam had.

I think the weapons inspectors should have had more time to continue inspections. I don't think the suspicion that he might have had WMDs was grounds to trigger a war in 2003 any more than it was in 1992-2002.

[Ashi]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK:

"all necessary means" comes from 678 which authorises force to, as you note, uphold resolution 660 - the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. it's not a carte blanche for whatever action any particular country feels is justified. As there's no longer Iraqi forces in Kuwait, 678 is redundant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, if what you are saying is true, and 678 is "redundant" then what is the purpose of putting this wording into 1441?

from 1441
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."

If what you are saying is true, then putting the above section into 1440 is not logical because by your interpretation this section is absolutely meaningless. However, it is included in 1441 so it must have some purpose for being there. Right? What other purpose would it be there for except to do exactly what is says?

You have already agreed that 678 authorizes "all necessary means" to uphold 660 but you continue to overlook that is also states "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660"
Why?