I know I am overloading my readers today, but the texts are too important.
Where are the lawyers here.
This text comes from intercitypress, a blog specialized in everything concerning the United Nations.
Thanks to our reader Anonymous CAM.
As UN Authorized Bombs Drop on Libya, UN Silent on Who Notified Ban
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- As more than 100 missiles rained down on Libya on March 19, it was a surprisingly quiet Saturday in and around the UN in New York, where theair strikes were authorized on March 17.
In front of the Libyan Mission on 48th Street there was a single police officer. There were two guards in front of the US Mission, and the UN Spokesperson's office was closed, not answering e-mail questions from the Press.
This is surprising given the role give to the UN andSecretary General Ban Ki-moon in Security Council resolution 1973, adopted on March 17 with ten votes in favor, five abstentions.
Countries are only authorized to “take all necessary measures” including Cruise missiles “to protect civilians” if they have “notified the Secretary General,” under theresolution's Operative Paragraph 4. The same is true, with the addition of notifying the Arab League, for enforcing the no fly zone or flight ban under Paragraph 8.
So one would expect the Secretary General or his Spokesperson's Office to be able to answer questions, including about which countries have provided notifications. But Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky did not answer e-mailed questions, and an early evening visit to his office found it locked shut. This Deputy Farhan Haq, his e-mail auto responder days, is out of the office until March 22.
Ban & Nesirky, answers about Libya prior notifications not shown
Inner City Press has asked
Given the language of UNSC Resolution 1973, please immediately disclose which Members States have “notified the Secretary General” under Operative Paragraph 4 before taking “all necessary measures...to protect civilians,” and under Paragraph 8 (flight ban), and all “coordinating” done by the Secretary General.
Was Mr. Al-Khatib in Paris; either way, what did he say? When will he file UN financial disclosure? Does he continue his private business including with Jordan Ahli Bank? Has the UN considered if this may present a conflict of interest?
Please state when the Secretariat last heard from Libya's Ali Treki, or from the Gaddafi government about presenting his credentials.
Treki is reported to be in Tunisia; he may seek to present his credentials to Ban as Libya's Permanent Representative to the UN. (Previously, Libya's Ibrahim Dabbashi told Inner City Press Treki was in Cairo.) If Ban accepts Treki's credentials, Shalgam can no longer be Permanent Representative, and the same would seem to apply to Dabbashi. What will Ban do?
Footnote: with so much talk about revitalizing the UN being a goal of the Obama administration and Ambassador Susan Rice, this silence at and from the UN should draw some reaction. But the US got what it wanted, the 10-0-5 vote, and has moved on, leaving a disputed narrative of its domination of the Security Council, particularly South Africa, in its wake.
But now the African Union, which did not attend the Paris summit, is calling for a a stop to the “assault ON Libya.” More diplomacy needed? Watch this site.
* * *
Exactly -they are on very dodgy ground. If no nofitication were the air strikes illegal? I just posted on no 21 about this just now in response to ego igwe.
ReplyDeleteinnercitypress is good to find out what is going on - they uploaded the resolution text too. I wonder if a government can take legal action against the UN? or is it sacrosanct?
The Russians have offered to mediate ( voice of russia website). There is a UN meeting tonight 'closed doors' called by Libya and the Russians who state the actions exceeded the remit of the resolution. CAM
PS your new site format is good
@hermes
ReplyDeletei did a post with news of un meeting tonight but it did not go up yet. here are some more sites re the UN charter fot lawyers amongst us. CAM
http://www.un-documents.net/a36r103.htm
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/lebanon/lebanon-tribunal.htm
@ CAM
ReplyDeleteHere is the Medvedev/Libya link:
http://rt.com/news/medvedev-stop-conflict-libya/
@ CAM
ReplyDeleteHere are the links:
Finally some sense... about the information gap... I always thought decisions were being made without sufficient facts on the ground. The Russians and Indians at the UN said that too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/libya-information-gap
plus
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/libya-uk-battles-hold-coalition
Finally the media have started thinking.
Hopefully we made some difference.
36/103. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States 1981:
ReplyDelete“1. No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.
2. The principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of States comprehends the following rights and duties …….. “
The Declaration then lists 3 rights, 15 duties, and 5 combined rights/duties. Some of the duties are:
“The duty of a State to refrain from the promotion, encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or secessionist activities within other States, under any pretext whatsoever, or any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or to undermine or subvert the political order of other States;
The duty of a State to refrain from concluding agreements with other States designed to intervene or interfere in the internal and external affairs of third States;
The duty of States to refrain from any measure which would lead to the strengthening of existing military blocs or the creation or strengthening of new military alliances, interlocking arrangements, the deployment of interventionist forces or military bases and other related military installations conceived in the context of great-Power confrontation;
The duty of a State to abstain from any defamatory campaign, vilification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other States;”
One of the 5 combined rights/duties is:
“The right and duty of States not to recognize situations brought about by the threat or use of force or acts undertaken in contravention of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference.”
At the end the Declaration says:
“Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice action taken by the United Nations under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” Ah ha! Here perhaps is the authorization to by-pass the non-intervention Declaration?
(to be continued in second post, due to length)
Part 2 of comment on UN Charter and UN Declaration:
ReplyDeleteI have checked Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI concerns the Pacific Settlement of Disputes which endanger international peace and security (i.e. not internal disputes). Even if international peace is endangered, the first steps by the Security Council must be non-martial:
“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”
Chapter VII is called “Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” Libya has done none of these three things. (The Peace means international peace, not internal peace.)
Article 39 confirms that it is international peace and security in question:
“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.”
IF international peace and security are threatened, then the following can happen:
“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.”
Clearly the UN Security Council has gone straight to Article 42 – but where is the threat to international peace? The UN is not even entitled to go to Article 41, let alone Article 42 if there is no international danger. Could there be later laws providing exceptions to the Charter, which itself is the only possible exception to the Declaration on Non-Intervention? If no such laws exist, then Britain and Europe and the USA are in breach of international law. And have been on previous occasions where no external aggression or threat to international peace was presented.
@Edith
ReplyDeleteI have been reading it too. It seems the UN is a law unto itself. It seems extraordinary no one in the press is writing about this. The Libyan government did say the UN had no mandate to issue this resolution but no press picked it up to investigate. CAM
UN latest from inner city press NY. Interesting
ReplyDeletehttp://www.innercitypress.com/churkin1spox032111.html
CAM
@edith:
ReplyDeleteYou may also ask why the UN isn't listening to Libya, regarding its request for an emergency meeting to stop the confrontation. One would think that it's what everyone would be hoping for. Clearly, there's an agenda.
If the UN was a legal entity (surprised? Yes, for all its posturing , it's not) it'd be thrown before the International Court. But there again, you could argue they are both cut from the same fabric.
The UN is not a legal entity; it is not set up by any body of laws nor are any binding on it. It is simply a conference of abiding member-states (like the Arab League and African Union) bound by honor to its agreements and self-imposing sanctions. And through it, the powers behind it i.e. the US and allies have become a law unto themselves, not the UN per sec, Anon CAM.
In essence, the UN is a world governing body run by their prodding and sponsorship, through fiat resolutions. It compares with the dollar, very favorably, which as we know is fiat money out of thin air. Likewise the UN; its 'laws' are fiat resolutions conjured from thin air, factually speaking.
Thanks Egoigwe and CAM. I suppose the harsh fact is, that the USA can do what it likes because it is so heavily armed - and smaller states go along with the USA. All the same, I do think it is worth pointing out the hypocrisy, and the fact that the UN does not obey its own laws. The laws themselves are quite good, and a lot of people must believe in them. We should force our leaders to obey the written law, if they don't they are shown up as the lawbreakers which they are in reality - although they pretend to be ever so righteous. I really hate this Hypocrisy - the opposite of Justice is not only Injustice but also Hypocrisy.
ReplyDelete