Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

As we all know in here, oxsan is very strongly in favour of saying 'their is no such thing as international law'. The arguments for this are certainly convincing if one takes the view of human nature and its consequential foundation of the nation state as put forward by Hobbes all those years ago.

So if it is does not exist the question arises, why do we refer to it so much? If we are simply in error in our use of terms then what ought to be the correct term?

Clearly, when we hear talk of 'international law' we must know what is meant by it? Smug has mentioned prevously that it must be something that comes out of treatied agreements we have signed with each other. As such 'international law' refers to some covenant we have made with in the hobbesian world and the sovereignty to which that covenant is responsible is the covenant itself ergo the treaty.

But is, or should that treaty ever be for posterity? I can imagine that most would say no, for if that treaty is no longer one thats serves the interests of the party signed to it, then it can legitimately no longer be considered sovereign in terms of the relationship between its parties, given that there is no common power from which to enforce the treaty as that would suggest the treaty was not sovereign and another entity was soveriegn over the sovereignty of nations.

So where am I leading with this one? Well, today we have seen images of alleged allied soldiers that have been captured and/or killed? We have been told in no uncertain words that this is 'against international law' and that it breaks the 'Geneva Convention'. To what extent do you consider Iraq obligated to Geneva? Do they have the right to withdraw their own covenant on this matter, as we also have the right to do if we so chose?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I also heard talk on TV today about trying Iraqi personnel before the ICC at The Hague. In fact a self proclaimed "International Law Expert" claimed that the ICC would have jurisdiction over post war Iraqi crimes even though neither the US nor the Government of Iraq is a signatory to the Treaty which establishesd the ICC--I know Clinton signed it but it was never ratified by the US Senate so it was effectively not signed and has now been repudiated by Bush. I think that the "Expert" is wrong.

I also heard that Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention
and thus cannot be held to its requirements.

My feeling is that if we win this war (and losing it is unthinkable) we should convene a tribunal in Bagdadh (if a building remains) and try parties there suspected of guilt and dispense summary justice. Sure it is a kangaroo court, but it deals with a kangaroo jumped up Dictator and I would find it very appropriate. I think that what is left of the Iraqi people would also.

I think that in all matters in a formal war of uniformed armies we, the Coalition, should observe the Geneva Convention even though our enemy does not .

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Iraq is signed up to it actually.

Last edited by philjit on 03-24-2003 at 02:49 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

quote:

---

What ought to be the term

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

ok oxsan. IN the past you have said tha some aspects of Geneva do not have to be adhered to. True it was a part that the US was not signed up to (about deliberately targetting civilian watre supplies), but I am curious, if the Allies did something, accidentally or not, that contravened something they were signed up to, what would your opinion be on it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I have never with respect to THIS war said that I didn't think the US was obligated to abide by the Geneva Convention. I made that statement with respect to the incarceration of Saudi turned Afghan turned Taliban guerrilla bandits in Guantanamo, Cuba.

I think that the US should abide by the Geneva convention as to the treatment of prisoners of regular troops. I will remind you that the US prisoners were captured by irregular ununiformed troops--essentially guerillas. It has been customary since time immemorial to deal with guerrilla forces on a different scale from regular uniformed troops. I don't know what the Convention says about that but it is a fact of life.

I had no idea that the Convention says that a nation should not bomb its water supplies but I am glad that we did not sign up to it because I consider it assinine. War is njot a bridge party or tea time. It is supposed to be harsh and to break the will of a nation to fight back. I think that the water and food supplies of a besieged city are a fair military target.

One other thing. If we break the Geneva Convention either purposely or through accident or negligence I think we should punish the officer or troops who are guilty (Just as we did Lieutenant Calley) and I do not think that the Criminal Justice system of any country other than the nation of the accused should be involved. Thank God, we did not ratify the ICC treaty.

I heard a rep of the ICC on TV yesterday. He was in Iraq inspecting to see if US troops broke any "International Laws" or the Geneva Convention. He was an Englishman by the way. A very nice young man. He opined that in his opinion we (the coalition) were in strict compliance with International Law and the Geneva Convention. Super, I am glad to hear it. But I notice that the ICC was not in Iraq inspecting to see if Iraq broke the Geneva Convention or doing anything about it. Just three weeks ago Iraq released to Iran a large number of prisoners it had held since 1988.

My view of what should happen if we break the convention or "international Law". Bad scene --we will deal with it and judge our own.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged