NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh wait...

Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (written by and signed by the United States of America)
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Neither did France....Israel....North korea....Norway (whaling)...Japan (whaling) and countloess other countries that have been ordered by the "world body" to do or not do something. But the US is expected to jump to attention? Please....

what is your point? I already know that the UN didn't approve of the war -- what difference does that make?

Neither did France....Israel....North korea....Norway (whaling)...Japan (whaling) and countloess other countries that have been ordered by the "world body" to do or not do something. But the US is expected to jump to attention? Please....

Well, maybe if one country did then maybe people might start respecting the UN, instead of saying "Well he did it too". I seem to recall this being central to the League of Nations falling, you know, Japan romping around Manchuria, Italy stomping over Ethiopia and Albania, Japan again massacring China proper, Germany refusing to recognize the League's authority (even though it used it to it's benefit earlier).

Well, maybe if one country did then maybe people might start respecting the UN, instead of saying "Well he did it too". I seem to recall this being central to the League of Nations falling, you know, Japan romping around Manchuria, Italy stomping over Ethiopia and Albania, Japan again massacring China proper, Germany refusing to recognize the League's authority (even though it used it to it's benefit earlier).

The UN needs to fall...France snubs its nose and tests nuclear weapons in violation of agreements then whines no end when we take out a very bad man. The UN is finished in my eyes.

Hmm, why is it that France, Japan, Iraq, etc etc etc define our morals as far as international relations are concerned, but Atheists don't define the morals of Christians?

What the hell is the point of citing other countries who have violated UN resolutions (by the way, how many of them have violated the actual charter like the US has and not just the resolutions...)?

The UN needs to fall...France snubs its nose and tests nuclear weapons in violation of agreements then whines no end when we take out a very bad man. The UN is finished in my eyes.

Maybe if we didn't violate the agreement we wrote for christ's sake (France was occupied at the time), then we would be in a position to stop France and punish it for doing so.

Little trivia... Did you know that the USA has used it's VETO power more then all the other 4 permanent members of the UNSC combined. Interesting, so the next time I hear any thing about France, I shall scream..lol Look in the mirror!

The UN needs to fall...France snubs its nose and tests nuclear weapons in violation of agreements then whines no end when we take out a very bad man. The UN is finished in my eyes.
By the way, they were probably whining because it violated Chapter VII

Little trivia... Did you know that the USA has used it's VETO power more then all the other 4 permanent members of the UNSC combined. Interesting, so the next time I hear any thing about France, I shall scream..lol Look in the mirror!

Yeah...to keep the UN from all but destroying Israel.

Another interesting fact: according to the US Constitution (Article 6? Article 7? it's in there somewhere) any treaties the US signs become the "supreme law of the land." Hence, when we violated the UN Charter, we violated our own law. Don't we usually hold people accountable for disregarding US law?

By the way, they were probably whining because it violated Chapter VII

Regardless...it is history now. What did the UN do about it? Nothing...they cannot do a THING to anyone...a paper tiger...toothless. They are jumping up and down about Sudan...what will they DO about it? Nothing...unless the US goes in there.

Yeah...to keep the UN from all but destroying Israel.

Well for christ sakes Bif, it was America that basically put the UN together, if you have a problem with the way it's run, you need look no further then your own backyard.

Well for christ sakes Bif, it was America that basically put the UN together, if you have a problem with the way it's run, you need look no further then your own backyard.

Exactly...and thats why we should dismantle it....it has outlived its usefulness. It was created to help contain the Soviet Union...and now that empire is gone so it serves no purpose anymore.

Exactly...and thats why we should dismantle it....it has outlived its usefulness. It was created to help contain the Soviet Union...and now that empire is gone so it serves no purpose anymore.
uh...no? Explain that BS please.

Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations (written by the United States)

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

The Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was no threat to the US, so attacking it was not a defencive manner. Therefor, one does not have to venture into the anarctic realm of international law to prove that the Iraq War was illegal.

Exactly...and thats why we should dismantle it....it has outlived its usefulness. It was created to help contain the Soviet Union...and now that empire is gone so it serves no purpose anymore.

That is not why it was created, it was created to stop a Third World War. We were allies with the Soviets at the time, and the idea we would be against them post-war was not at the forefront of everyones mind as it was in 1945. The world had just gone through the first world war (16,000,000 dead), and was in the throes of the Second World War (65,000,000 dead) within two decades of each other.

If you can't tell from the body count, new weapons and an ever increasing warzone meant each successing war was costing more human lives and money to fight. It looked very likely without an international body with some force (which basically was the US and UK) the Third World War would happen within another two decades of the Second, the first international body had suffered from it's start (the US never ratified Versailles or joined the league of Nations), so it was decided this organization would be borne in war. In order to join the UN, you had to declare war on the Axis of Nations (Nazi Germany, the Italian Socialist Republic, Imperia Japan, Romania, and Bulgaria and their puppets). The UN was originally the name used to describe the Allies in WWII.

Another interesting fact: according to the US Constitution (Article 6? Article 7? it's in there somewhere) any treaties the US signs become the "supreme law of the land." Hence, when we violated the UN Charter, we violated our own law. Don't we usually hold people accountable for disregarding US law?
Not if they are President of US. While Saddam is held accountable Bush will not.

The Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was no threat to the US, so attacking it was not a defencive manner. Therefor, one does not have to venture into the anarctic realm of international law to prove that the Iraq War was illegal.
Exactly...
The UN Charter does allow for self-defense. Which would've worked out a hell of a lot better for the United States in the international community. (And I'm not buying into you "So you're saying we should have let Americans die" argument.)

Another interesting fact: according to the US Constitution (Article 6? Article 7? it's in there somewhere) any treaties the US signs become the "supreme law of the land." Hence, when we violated the UN Charter, we violated our own law. Don't we usually hold people accountable for disregarding US law?Article VI, and not quite. Treaties ratifed under the consitution bind the states and no state law or constitution contrary to the treaty is legitimate law. It is an open question of whether the US government can enter a treaty which decreases it's own powers, but a strong argument can be made that the US government's powers are derived (under US law), it cannot enter a treaty which increases or decreases it's powers - that right being reserved to the soverign states.

I'm pretty sure Monroe Doctrine increased our powers, when we made the ability to tax we increased our power (money equals power which was why articles of Confederation failed).
So we can increase our powers, so why can't we decrease them?

Exactly...and thats why we should dismantle it....it has outlived its usefulness. It was created to help contain the Soviet Union...and now that empire is gone so it serves no purpose anymore.

Ok, opinions aside, lets be really honest here, had the UN approved the US action in Iraq, you'd be singing it's praises.. Just because a body doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean it's over for it. The UN has become larger then just the USA now. Now please don't take me out of context, I say that, meaning, it's not a decision up to just the USA any more. The reach is further then that now. Just because a government or body doesn't agree with you, that doesn't make them irrelevant. Believe it or not, America is not always right.

Exactly...
The UN Charter does allow for self-defense. Which would've worked out a hell of a lot better for the United States in the international community. (And I'm not buying into you "So you're saying we should have let Americans die" argument.)



here is my point .<--------------------------------> and here is you


let me say it again: One does not have to venture into the anarchic realm of international law to prove that the Iraq War was illegal. Because there is no legal basis for the war in the constitution as Iraq was no threat to the United States.

Had the UN approved the war, I would have been for it from the beginning as well.

Had the UN approved the war, I would have been for it from the beginning as well.

If the UN jumped off of a bridge, would you?

The war was illegal for the US because Iraq did not threaten the United States of America. What France, Russia and the Pope think about that is irrelevant. All that matters is that the government of the US has no legal authority to fly half-way around the world to "liberate" people.

We'll i think the war is bullshit. It's just like that movie Canadian Bacon. Everyone started disliking the President so he figures. I'l start up a war, and invisble war. Call it the war on Terror. Yea, and i will make it seem like we are winning, when in fact we arn't even fighting anythying but a bunch of poor Arabs. Yea that'll showem!

I'm pretty sure Monroe Doctrine increased our powers, when we made the ability to tax we increased our power (money equals power which was why articles of Confederation failed).
So we can increase our powers, so why can't we decrease them?WE can, the government cannot. While the Monroe Doctrine (inter alia) may have increased the power of the US government it did not create any new powers for the US government (the government already had the power to declare and wage war and conduct siplomacy).

Actually it is an open question of whether or not the US government can. The nature of the soverignity of the US government is not clear and has been befuddled by a few years of conflicting decisions. The argument for this view runs something like this:
The original soverign of the US is the people of the US (the preamble) which created the government of the US and endowed the government with a variety of powers. The original soverign retained for itself (either directly or through the states) the power to amend the consitution (article V), and deprived the federal government of this power, the federal government may not change it's powers on its own.