Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P
It seems as if you are the one that does not understand the law. That means that they will determine (they can determine all they want. Nothing in the wording says that they decide for the other nations).
|
Read carefully. Try to understand.
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.
On matters of the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression - it is the Security Council that "shall determine" whether these things exist.
Not individual nations. The wording says
exactly that they decide for the other nations. By agreeing to this clause in this treaty, the USA has agreed that in matters between UN Member States - the USA relinquishes its right to decide on the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression - because the UN Security Council SHALL DETERMINE this
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P
Make recommendations. You keep ignoring that part.
|
What is to ignore?
It says that if the UN Security Council has determined that threat exists - then the UN Seciurity Council
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.
Why do you keep ingoring the words directly after those - " or decide what measures shall be taken"
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P
I am still waiting to see where article 39 says. And I quote
Invading a UN member nation without sanction from the UN Security Council is illegal under Article 39 of the UN Charter
Can you please show me where it says that? I thank you in advance.
|
It is very clear.
By invading a UN member nation without sanction from the UN Security Council - it is the invading nation(s) that has determined the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
This is contrary to Article 39, which says that the UN Security Council will determine this - NOT the member nation.
And it was the member nation that decided what measures would be taken in response to this perceived threat.
This is contrary to Article 39, which says that the UN Security Council will decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Because the action was directly contrary to the provisions of Article 39 - it is illegal under Article 39.
I don't know how I can explain this any more simply to you.
If you don't understand how to read law - please don't try to pretend that you do.