|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 21:50:28 GMT
So what made the UK attack on Germany in September 1939 lawful? Rules of war going back to the Middle Ages, with particular reference to Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of just war. That's not legality though, is it? The concept of a "just war" is a philosophical one not a legal one. Who decided that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 21:56:38 GMT
Why should the UK and the US listen to the group of African dictators, Asian theocrats and South American strongmen that is the UN? This is the same organisation that claimed us holding Gibraltar is illegitimate. No, we should totally ignore that group. Like the EU it is best when solving unsexy undisputed low saliency but important issues behind the scenes. It should not act to supplant as supreme to national governments. Like the EU it is has highly questionable democratic principles and not unrelatedly)
questionable motives and outlooks.
Law cannot and should not be so broad that it covers international actions like this.
Law has to operate behind the confines of reality. The reality at this scale is that the winners call the shots.
I totally agree Iraq was a mistake, but the consequence must be that we see tge error of our ways and don't attempt regime change in this manner again. That means so much more than bringing two has been pensioners infront of kangaroo court with some judge from a banana republic.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 17, 2017 21:59:35 GMT
And if we do have to go off-topic can we please discuss trains, beer or Anglo-Saxon literature rather than the 2010 Coalition or the legality of action in Iraq? Please!But did Beowulf have UN backing for his military action against Grendel? Don't know, but I bet DB has an opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 17, 2017 22:00:08 GMT
Incidentally the last declaration of war by the United Kingdom was on Thailand on 25 January 1942, so no action by UK forces has been backed by a declaration of war since September 1945. Correct, though it should be remembered that military action in Korea was duly authorised by the UN and the Falklands War was justified by reference to the UN -recognized right of self-defence. IIRC so was Afghanistan, on the basis of Afghan government complicity in the Twin Towers attacks on the USA. Most other British military actions were not technically wars but were "operations in support of the civil authority." Up until the Blair government, which gave us Kossovo, Sierra Leone, and Iraq. Sierra Leone was in support of the civil authority. Kossovo was, somewhat dubiously, supposed to enforce a UN resolution. But for Iraq there is nothing, zero, nada. Which is pretty much the problem that you are refusing to accept. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 22:00:58 GMT
A sovereign state has every right to issue a unilateral guarantee should it so wish and to activate is terms should the circumstances arise.Poland was attacked , and proceeded to ask for the support of Britain & France under the terms of the guarantee. A warning and Ultimatum was issued before war was declared. Britain and the US never even went through the motions of a Declaration of War , but simply resorted to an unprovoked attack on an independent sovereign state.. All you've done there is (questionably) describe the circumstances. What made it legal to go to war with Germany in 1939? Questionably because there was provocation by Iraq, and so what that it was an independent sovereign state? Incidentally the last declaration of war by the United Kingdom was on Thailand on 25 January 1942, so no action by UK forces has been backed by a declaration of war since September 1945. The Government of a sovereign state had the right to declare war.Wars embarked on without a Declaration of War would not be viewed as 'just'. Since the founding of the UN the only wars recognised as lawful are those fought in self defence.That certainly did not apply to the attack on Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 22:02:43 GMT
Since the founding of the UN the only wars recognised as lawful are those fought in self defence. Source for this extremely dubious assertion? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 17, 2017 22:10:24 GMT
Rules of war going back to the Middle Ages, with particular reference to Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of just war. That's not legality though, is it? The concept of a "just war" is a philosophical one not a legal one. Who decided that? There is a massive corpus of writing on what constituted the laws of war. I'm not going to draw up an undergraduate reading list here, especially as I'm not qualified for any period after 1500, and before that date I'm having to rely on my memory of a longish essay written 30 years ago. Start with Thomas of Aquinas and work on from him. And no, the concept of just war is not purely philosophical; that is why, up until 1942 it was routine to declare war. It is where the Geneva Convention comes from. It was on the basis of such concepts that the Germans claimed the right to shoot combatants who were not in uniform. It was then the basis for the Nuremburg trials. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 22:15:39 GMT
Why should the UK and the US listen to the group of African dictators, Asian theocrats and South American strongmen that is the UN? This is the same organisation that claimed us holding Gibraltar is illegitimate. No, we should totally ignore that group. Like the EU it is best when solving unsexy undisputed low saliency but important issues behind the scenes. It should not act to supplant as supreme to national governments. Like the EU it is has highly questionable democratic principles and not unrelatedly) questionable motives and outlooks. Law cannot and should not be so broad that it covers international actions like this. Law has to operate behind the confines of reality. The reality at this scale is that the winners call the shots. I totally agree Iraq was a mistake, but the consequence must be that we see tge error of our ways and don't attempt regime change in this manner again. That means so much more than bringing two has been pensioners infront of kangaroo court with some judge from a banana republic. But to say that Iraq was a 'mistake' is like saying that the attack on Poland was a 'mistake'.Those responsible for that were eventually tried at Nuremberg and most were strung up. No attempt has been made to hold Blair and Bush to account for their crimes.In terms of the Nuremberg Indictment relating to 'Planning for Aggressive War' both were more culpable than any of the Nazis put on trial - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop. Even today we read how the British establishment is seeking to thwart attempts to pursue a private prosecution against Blair , Straw & Goldsmith. When the legal avenues are closed off in this way, it becomes difficult not to feel sympathy for those who resort to other means to obtain justice. Personally I would be perfectly happy to see Blair share Bin Laden's fate - including being dumped at sea. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 17, 2017 22:20:21 GMT
Why should the UK and the US listen to the group of African dictators, Asian theocrats and South American strongmen that is the UN? Personally I would agree with this. The UN was set up to provide an alternative for war and where necessary authorise it, but the flaw in that is exactly as you set out. But for that reason I believe we should revert to previous practice. An ultimatum should be given setting out what the other country needs to do to avoid war, with a set time limit, and following failure to comply war should be declared, with British armed forces authorised to carry out all acts of war against the armed forces of the country concerned, anywhere in the world. In the case of the Falklands War, for example, Argentina should have been given an ultimatum to withdraw all forces from the Falklands and South Georgia by a certain date and on failing to do so war would be declared; the General Belgrano would have been sunk on sight, and raids on the Argentine mainland (if they really happened) would have been legitimate, as would have been air raids on Argentine airfield had we been able to manage it. In line with Miller, i would expect any declaration of war to now require a vote in parliament rather than use of the prerogative. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Apr 17, 2017 22:23:38 GMT
There is no country on earth that would allow the UN or any other organisation to veto its right to start a war, whether declared or not. People can bleat all they like about this but that is the reality- and no UN document specifically or explicitly makes invasions illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 22:24:16 GMT
Since the founding of the UN the only wars recognised as lawful are those fought in self defence. Source for this extremely dubious assertion? Article 51 of the UN Charter. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Apr 17, 2017 22:26:45 GMT
In any case, those legality debates are extremely tenious and boring.
People don't care whether a war is legal or not, not rather if it's justified. In the case of Irak, it clearly wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 17, 2017 22:31:30 GMT
I'm going to try doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️'s patience even further by mentioning that the last private battle in England was fought in 1469 (right in the middle of the Wars of the Roses, but nothing to do with them) at Nibley Green in Gloucestershire, and that the main source of information about it is the civil law case which the loser's mother brought against the victor and several of his supporters, even though the plaintiff's (deceased) son had freely agreed to the battle. (She got damages, but the defendant got to hang on to Berkeley Castle, which was the point of the affair.) Back then the idea that law had no relevance to war and that anything went was not accepted. But then they were more civilised than we are. The battle was fought over an entail and when I first read about it, it struck me that Pride and Prejudice would have been a very different story if written 300 years earlier. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,772
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Apr 17, 2017 22:31:43 GMT
Excellent posts Adam - I'm not sure I'd have the patience to spend that amount of time on David's bank-holiday trolling!
PS The legality of war has been debated at least since Roman times - Some accused Julius Caesar of being a war criminal even in his own time because of his behaviour in Germania and Gaul.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 22:33:25 GMT
It is the hypocrisy and double standards that gets to many people. Trump and the US throwing their weight around and clearly showing utter contempt for International Law - as did Blair and Bush before him - is really in pure legal terms little different to what Hitler was doing in the late 1930s and early 40s. We are simply encouraged by our own Governments and media to turn a blind eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 22:39:28 GMT
Source for this extremely dubious assertion? Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 says nothing about the circumstances in which wars are legal. The concept of a "legal" or "lawful" war is not mentioned in the United Nations Charter. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,463
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 17, 2017 22:56:24 GMT
Personally I would be perfectly happy to see Blair share Bin Laden's fate - including being dumped at sea. What's the betting the bastard wouldn't drown? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,022
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 17, 2017 23:10:49 GMT
The explanation is: changed mind. Ditto tuition fees. Well we didn't did we. This is what the manifesto said: 'The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.' That circumstance certainly hasn't happened since 2010. In fact it pretty much backs up us calling for a referendum on the deal the UK wants to do with the EU doesn't it... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 23:44:27 GMT
You've changed your mind on ever having referendums or respecting the result or both. You simply just do not get this democracy thing do you ? When Chamberlain came back from Munich waving his bit of paper before cheering crowds , Churchill did not just accept the views and will of the people , he carried on opposing appeasement and saying it was wrong . Theres a difference between opposing government policy when you are an opposition party and voting agaisnt the triggering of article 50 when that was the precise instructions to parliament delivered by the referendum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 23:50:21 GMT
Why should the UK and the US listen to the group of African dictators, Asian theocrats and South American strongmen that is the UN? This is the same organisation that claimed us holding Gibraltar is illegitimate. No, we should totally ignore that group. Like the EU it is best when solving unsexy undisputed low saliency but important issues behind the scenes. It should not act to supplant as supreme to national governments. Like the EU it is has highly questionable democratic principles and not unrelatedly) questionable motives and outlooks. Law cannot and should not be so broad that it covers international actions like this. Law has to operate behind the confines of reality. The reality at this scale is that the winners call the shots. I totally agree Iraq was a mistake, but the consequence must be that we see tge error of our ways and don't attempt regime change in this manner again. That means so much more than bringing two has been pensioners infront of kangaroo court with some judge from a banana republic. But to say that Iraq was a 'mistake' is like saying that the attack on Poland was a 'mistake'.Those responsible for that were eventually tried at Nuremberg and most were strung up. No attempt has been made to hold Blair and Bush to account for their crimes.In terms of the Nuremberg Indictment relating to 'Planning for Aggressive War' both were more culpable than any of the Nazis put on trial - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop. Even today we read how the British establishment is seeking to thwart attempts to pursue a private prosecution against Blair , Straw & Goldsmith. When the legal avenues are closed off in this way, it becomes difficult not to feel sympathy for those who resort to other means to obtain justice. Personally I would be perfectly happy to see Blair share Bin Laden's fate - including being dumped at sea. Im sorry that is totally ridiculous. The nazis were hellbent on murdering or enslaving pretty much the whole of eastern europe, Caucasus and most of Northern Europe 100 million plus people. They were amongst the most evil and insane tyrants ever to have ruled a country. On the contrary Blair and Bush wanted to get rid of a tyrant in a fairly insignificant muddle eastern state. The two are not even vaguely on the same ballpark. And then we get to the question of the legitimacy of the court. The allies defended the free world. They had force nd moral supremacy. It was their right and responsibility to try those responsible for the atrocities. The UN on the other hand has no legitimacy as the club of dictators, strongmen theocrats and banana republics. It issues edicts that are demonstrably wrong and counter to our legitimate national intrests on a regular basis. Yet there is no international alternative. So nationally - are we rrally going to try and charge a PM for an action legitimized by parliament? Is that not madness??? As such there is no suitable court to try messers Blair and Bush. Although I agreed with the outcome of Lib Dem policy on this matter I found the manner of getting there totally unacceptable and illogical. It must be for our government and parliament to decide how and when to launch military action. Internationalism for internationalism sake taken beyond its logical use and limitations does nobody any favours. When Kennedy sought to outsource his policy on this area it demonstrated a significantl failure in leadership. |
|
