Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
But he invasion was illegal under Article 39 of the UN Charter, which by Article 6 of the US Constitution forms part of US law.
|
This is false. The UN Charter in no way causes a member nation to abrogate its right to go to war. No government would seriously entertain the notion of becoming a member if it lost the right to defend itself.
Quote:
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.
|
This merely says that the security council will make recommendations concerning international conflicts.
Quote:
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.
|
"Calling on members to comply with measures', again, doesn't in any way mean that a given act of war is or is not legal.
Quote:
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.
|
This merely says the Security Council can impose sanctions.