Ciao!

I don't think, this is hilarious. I think, it is disgusting. It also won't work. The person who punches will be sued for assault. That is what happens in a society. BTW, there is an International War Crimes Tribunal. Support it, Mr. Bush!

After punching back at Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, America punched at Iraq, it threatens to punch at Syria, Iran, North Korea...

All of these punches are at best only loosely connected to Al Qaeda's punch. Neither revenge nor self defense are involved here.

Instead of punching anyone that moves, America should have let the UN inspectors do their job.

There is too little space here to elaborate on this. I will do so in my own log in the coming days. I will post a note, here.

Wait. Are you saying there are consequences for such actions? Like, maybe some sort of punishment? We don't just forgive and hug and talk about our feelings? Wow.

But ... what happens in the international community? Where there are no police? What then? Oh, wait. I think I know the answer.

The "coalition of the willing" is applying the law of the fist. Great decision. That will help to set an example about how we want to settle our arguments in the future.

By ignoring the International Court of Justice, for example,the US do their best to weaken the creation of international(binding)law.

While the original post was supposed to be funny, that kind of humor unfortunately lacks any taste.

One, you take yourself too seriously.

Two, you take "international law" too seriously. It doesn't really exist; so long as we believe in sovereignty (that there is NO power superior to the state), each state will enforce "international law" independently.

Basically, the state that has a lot of power and clout can enforce their brand of "internatioanl law". Why? Because it can.

Sounds like brute authoritarian form of government, that happens to preach democracy. True democracy gives not only its citizens, but also the other people at large, the freedom to choose. The freedom to accept, and the freedom to reject "democracy".

Careful. Modern democracy only exists in a state. A state is defined as an organization that has a "monopoly on the means of coercion" over a specific territory. There is no international "state" w/ such authority. So the rules of modern democracy don't quite apply.

Imagine two scenarios: 1) A burglar breaks into your house. You call the police because there are institutionalized rules and norms (a state). 2) Country A invades country B. Who do they call? Where's the international police? A must rely on force (and its allies) to defeat B. There's no other credible recourse.

The war in Afghanistan was cause for US to fight back, because AlQaeda invaded US first.

Not with this war. In this scenario, the burglar turns out to be USA, that also happens to be part of the "international police." How does one deal in a situation like this?

You can argue that "international law" doesn't really exist. it's irrelevant. The point is that there is a want for and belief of international law, along with the institution set up for it. And US, one of the biggest shareholders, broke it.

I don't think I understand this breach of international law you all are speaking of. There is no international law that I am aware of that states that a country cannot declare war on any other for whatever reason they see fit. I am aware that there are international laws that refer to the proper course of such an action: ie- a public declaration therof.

Bush made his demands. They weren't met. He proposed his ultimatum. It wasn't satisfied. He declared war.

This is not all that scandalous.

Or am I mistaken?

Feel free to rebutt. I may just be ignorant.

Love,
Micah

Well, there is "international law", it's jut not enforceable. It's up to states themselves to enforce it as they can. As to Iraq, we actually had a technical legal right to fight them. The 1991 war never ended; there was no formal peace treaty, only a cease fire. The cease fire called for a variety of conditions that Iraq never met (it was supposed to disarm w/in 45 days, for example). Since the conditions weren't met, the US had a right to continue the war (that's why the US kept referring to "material breach", a legal term).

The war of 1991 was legal. Why? Because Iraq invaded Kuwait. A country can not just invade another because it feels like it. That is a breach of international law. The UN had always agreed on that. The UN is the supernational power producing international law.

The UN has enforced its resolutions in the past: mainly by economic embargo. Militarily it allowed their member states to enforce the resolutions. The goal of all resolutions was to restore peace and security in the region. That is the goal set by the UN. Many member states disagree that this war will achieve that, though.

Miguel, the legal ground for the war on Iraq is the authorization by the UN to use any means neccessary to restore peace and security in the region.(as read in 1441 for example)

In arguing this way, you acknowledge that the UN is more than a debating club. It is the legitimate supernational institution to secure peace. You recognize that its resolutions have to be met. Therefore you acknowledge that there is binding international law. Its enforcement may be delegated to member states. The authority remains with the UN.

You completely misunderstand me. Yes, there is such a thing as "international law". But. There is no international "state". The UN is nothing more than a debating society. It has no power of taxation. It has no monopoly over the means of coercion. It is NOT a super-state. If and when nations abide by UN resolutions they do so because they choose to, not because they are compelled to. And that is the crucial difference.

Consider domestic laws. When you obey a domestic law, you do so because the state has the ability to compel you to obey. That's why Americans pay their taxes. That's why we have a police that patrol the streets. That's why we have courts and other institutions that work around the clock. There is no debating. When my neighbor breaks into my house, I don't call for a neighborhood meeting and ask the community to enforce the common law. No. I just dial 911 and the mechanisms of state take over. Without debate. See the difference?

The UN is more than a debating club: it produces international law. It is less than a super-state: it does not collect taxes. It is something in between.
If you sign a treaty or charter or resolution it is valid whether you change your mind later or not. The fact that international law is not easily enforced doesn't take anything away from the validity of treaties.

UN meaningless?
why does Bush argue pro-war in terms of UN-resolutions? (He seems to recognize their legitimacy here)

UN meaningfull? why does he choose to ignore this institution in going to war without the knowledge of the final Blix report?

America shows great inconsistency in how it regards the UN. If time will show the UN to be meaningless then to a large extent because the US government has decided not to take it seriously. There is nor reason then to complain about other countries not to abide by its resolutions.

So, fine. Mr. Bush leads America to war. Do it for your national interest, do it to "free" Iraq, whatever. DOn't pretend to do it for the sake of the UN and its resolutions. that is just not the case.

Right on. Fight the liberals with their own logic and words you'll defeat them everytime. I'm not condoning this somewhat violent approach, but this should bring to light that left wing, liberal core beliefs don't have a speck of common sense. This is world in which good and evil coexist. Face it. A world ruled by the agressive use of force, where peace only comes after victory. Show me where pacifism has worked. North Korea? Giving Hitler Czechoslovakia? Oslo Accords? Camp David? Iraq?