|
2003-03-30 : 11:58 a.m.
absorb- ation...
Do you know what's fabulous about the UN...? (Yes, that would be just a weee-bit of sarcasm there... y'know the stuff? Dry Humor?) See, their doctrines can be as ambiguous and easily interpreted, in three dimensions, as God's word in the bible... That kind of thing tends to happen unfortunately, when too many folks have therir two sense in- and only feel comfortable committing to the "greys" of words..
"Before to the UN Charter, the customary law doctrine found in the Caroline case accepted the legality of anticipatory self-defense. The Caroline case said that the British government was entitled to act and anticipate further attacks. Then came Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter which prohibits �the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state�; and Article 51, which allows �individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.� For Kelsen, Article 51 exhausts the scope of allowable self-defense and therefore excludes the right of anticipatory self-defense and the defense of nationals abroad. Brownlie says that �the ordinary meaning of the phrase precludes action which is preventive in character.� Henkin argues that the drafters of the Charter �recognized the exception of self-defense in emergency, but limited to actual armed attack, which is clear, unambiguous, subject to proof, and not easily open to misinterpretation or fabrication.� In sum, an armed attack must be awaited. On the other side of the debate are those who argue that it was not the intention of the Charter to limit pre-1945 customary law on self-defense. The Charter calls it an �inherent� right. As Bowett says, �It is . . . fallacious to assume that members have only those rights which the Charter accords them. On the contrary, they have those rights which general international law accords to them, except insofar as they have surrendered them under the Charter.� He adds that the article �should safeguard the right of self-defense, not restrict it,� and a denial of anticipatory self-defense is a �restriction which bears no relation to the realities of a situation which may arise prior to an actual attack.� The Bush thinking is along this line. It might also be noted that the judgment in the Nicaragua case left open the question whether or not there is a right of anticipatory self-defense. " Wonderful article in ABS-CBNNEWS.com, dated March 15, 2003. Referring to a wealth of information... Just wanted to 'bookmark' as it were, once again... how ingrain and complicated the issue is... Much of which, normal TV news coverage will not address... because the general public is so easily "bored with the long details. Again, no NATION... is interest free... so be weary of your nationalistic views, before you share. Stories hold more hues of grey than you think... It would be wise, and would certainly strengthen your case, if you take your brain, and absorb with it, every which way. Thank you kindly...
|
| BIO | newest | previous | next | older | rings |
| guestbook | note |
| profile | cast | design | host |
| my survey |
| i love LTJ |
| pictures |