humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On 21 Mar, 00:18, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Mar 20, 10:05 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > On 19 Mar, 22:32, Charles Bell wrote:
> > > [....]
> > > Chicken or egg?  Who said what first?  If it was so obvious as you
> > > claim that initiating as war against a country that never attacked
> > > another country was internationally legal then why proceed with a
> > > Declaration of a Doctrine of military action against any nation which
> > > harbors international terrorists, and not just fall back on what the
> > > U.N. wished to do?
>
> > Because the Bush administration wanted to secure the
> > legal ground for attacks on Iraq and Iran.
>
> Exactly so, the Bush Doctrine is to make international law clearly be
> that which you and Sollars say it may or may not be: the invasion and
> change of regime in Afghanistan was just.

Total non-sequitur. The invasion of Afghanistan
was legal within existing international law at the
time (of which the Bush Doctrine was not part).
I believe both Gordon and I are in agreement on
that point.

> > > Moreover, why would any U.N. nation dare to
> > > criticize Israel for invading Lebanon because that country has been
> > > harboring and abetting terrorists who constantly attack Israel across
> > > a border that has not been in dispute?
>
> > Depends on which instances you are referring to.
> > Israel has often fallen foul of the requirement of
> > proportionality.
>
> The notion of "proportionality" simply does not fit in a case when
> there is no tit-for-tat retaliation but rather an overarching goal of
> fixing the problem of atate-supported or hosted terrorism.

That's not what the US thought when it
gave its reasons for voting in favour of
Resolution 262.

> > Also the law has changed since the
> > 1970s.
>
> Again, you feel no need to fill in the details of how this might be.

It's impossible to be specific when you
are not specific about the Israeli acts
you are referring to. The law had changed
to a greater degree by 2003 than it had by
1992.

> As anonymous poster assured us all that _Nicaragua_ was not the last
> word, he failed to show how.

He showed how by directing
you to Resolution 748.

> > > Resolution 1373 is effectively meaningless. It requests states to take
> > > strong action against those who finance or engage in terrorist acts,
> > > but it does not define terrorist acts or terrorism. [Freedom fighters
> > > versus terrorists conundrum.]  Perhaps you can correct me on this, but
> > > what in the language of Resolution 1373 would authorize the U.S. to do
> > > what it did in Afghanistan?
>
> > "Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or
> > collective self-defence as recognised by the
> > Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in
> > Resolution 1368 (2001)". The reference to the
> > right of self-defence in a resolution condemning
> > the harbouring of terrorists implies that harbouring
> > States may be legitimate targets of self-defence.
>
> There is nothing whatsoever in that language that justifies anything
> outside Article 51 by 1368 or by 1373 which specifically includes:
> "affirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the
> Charter of the United Nations."  Which is to say that Article 51 is
> not altered to include situations when the offending nation (the one
> harboring terrorists) has not attacked.

Again, non-sequitur. A51 says nothing about
the targets of self defence, therefore there is
no reason to suppose it excludes the right to
take forceful action against harbourers.
Resolution 1368 impliedly confirms this
interpretation.

> > > By the way, why do you think that the Bush doctrine is *necessarily*
> > > though "preemptive" as in anticipatory of grave acts of violence
> > > against the U.S., irrationally and easily construed as aggressive and
> > > not self-defensive?
>
> > I didn't say that and it is not neccessary for
> > my argument that I prove it.
>
> Yes, it is necessary to offer up *something* by way of demonstration
> of alleged invalidity of the Bush Doctrine.

All that is necessary is that I point
to its rejection (as I already have) by,
e.g. the UN High Panel and by various
Member States such as France.

>  I can concede that for
> every one expert in the field that says "yea" one can find one that
> says "nay", and that the thrust of my argument that international law
> (and the U.N) is not settled on the issue, and yet you give the
> impression that it is, and that the Bush Doctrine is somehow redundant
> or contravening, I am not sure which.

Redundant insofar as it purports
to legitimise the war in Afghanistan;
contravening the basic principles of
modern international law insofar as it
seeks to make the injured State judge
and jury of the lawfulness of its response.

> [...]
> For Quigley, the resolutions do not overcome the weaknesses in the
> U.S. legal position. For him, the Sept. 11 attack doesn't fit the
> implicit meaning of Article 51. The authors of that language were
> thinking of situations in which one nation invaded another, he says.
>
> Even if the Taliban is harboring the terrorists, and even if the
> Security Council has made clear that harboring international
> terrorists violates international law, Quigley said, Article 51
> doesn't justify a military attack to punish a country for the crime of
> harboring.
>
> What say you to that?  He's wrong, and you do not have to "prove" it?

I say that he's wrong and I can give my
reason for thinking that. The proper
interpretative question is not what
the authors "were thinking of" but what
the language of the Charter means. The
language of A51 does not restrict the
range of targets of lawful self-defence,
therefore there is no reason to believe
that self-defence cannot be directed
against State harbourers.