is required by the US government to avoid war.
This goal can't be achieved over the UN. All the resolutions called for disarming, not for regime change.
So the choice is either illegal war or no war, the choice being that of the American government.
Until a few days ago I thought that by this unfortunate turn of events the prohibition against threatening or using force in the UN Charter would become history.
However, another view is possible.
If someone violates the law, that does not remove the law. Actually it's the other way around.
As an example I offer the provisions in Japanese criminal law against crimes against the Emperor.
Those provisions were introduced in the Meiji restauration under foreign influence. The Japanese thought that kind of law was not necessary. No Japanese would think of a crime against the Emperor in the first place.
Then, under the American occupation, the provisions in the criminal code protecting the Emperor were abolished. The occupation did not like the idea of different levels of protection, that being against the principle of equality.
In this example, if the original idea of the Japanese in the 19th Century is correct and no one would dream of attacking the Emperor in the first place, there is no need for a special provision in the criminal code. And even having one does not change much of anything.
Back to the violation of international law. If no state violated the UN Charter in the first place, it would not be necessary. If one very powerful state (the US) wages an illegal war, that does not remove the law. On the contrary. That will be an opportunity to find out how strong it is.
The worldwide opposition to US war plans is motivated at least in part by the fact that the war will be illegal. Having to deal with strong opposition from powerful countries as Russia makes the war much more difficult for the US.
And, while the US seems to want to dump their obligations under the UN Charter, other nations have until now not asserted this position. That means that even if the force of the UN Charter to keep the US from waging illegal wars is in doubt right now, it is not in doubt for all other law-abiding countries.
The system of international law is certainly put to a test by the US government's war plans. But it might actually emerge strengthened from the crisis. International law becomes important the moment some government does not want to follow it anymore.
We will see what happens.
Update 02.03.2003: Canadian Prime Minister also critical of "regime change".
Posted by Karl-Friedrich Lenz at March 1, 2003 08:40 PM | TrackBack