Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Mr. President will order Security!

`My message to the United States Congress is that this trade agreement is more than a matter of smart economics, it is a matter of national security` president bush pronounced convincing the congress to ratify the treaty meanwhile justifying the Columbia’s incursion to Ecuador pale.

Before that, since December 2007 (or maybe even before that), Turkey started launching attacks on Kurd armed groups which seemed to be resident in Iraqi territory after the regime change in Iraq and since Regional Kurdish Government had taken over the control of Kurds in northern of Iraq. Regardless of Vehement Condemnation of the attacks by the Regional Kurdish Government, the attacks went on and on till recently the Kurd authority asked Turkey to exclude civilians from fruity attacks; which seemed to be an invitation for minding the principles of proportionality and necessity to be considered by the attackers;
"Any attack on any citizen in Kurdistan or populated areas will be answered with massive resistance ... and all preparations have been made in this matter," a statement from the presidency of the Kurdish Regional Government said. Reuters
Now the incident of Columbia, launching attacks on a foreign country’s pale to suppress the Norco-terrorists (FARC) as President Bush said, shows that the united state is supporting such attacks and even gives concessions to those sates applying the theory.
In Granada, the United States claimed that use of force, outside the charter exceptions on the prohibition of the use of force embodied in the article 2(4) of the charter i.e. self defense and measures taken by the Security Council under 7th and 8th chapters (charter based exceptions) is permissible if it is in accordance with objectives of the charter e.g. peace and democracy; the idea became heart of the editorial comment by Michael Riesman in AJIL at 1984 vol. 78 which was followed by Oscar Schachter critique, describing it as Pro-Democratic Invasion. In his very celebrated comment, professor Schachter, inter alia, focused on the principle of territorial integrity more than anything else besides taking charter and the United Nations as the only authority for using force for its purposes and objectives. This discussion, apparently, was opposing another justification that the United States relied on, in the Security Council, referring to Entebbe Incident in 1976 which in, Israeli Armed forces attacked the airport in Entebbe-Uganda to save nationals and hostages taken by the PLO, concluding that since the violation of territorial integrity of Uganda by Israeli forces and in the present case (Granada) by US army had been temporary, then it is justifiable.
In my view, even if the arguments of the `Legalist` side of the discussion (as Robert Keohane used the term legalist to describe some lawyers in contrast to Instrumentalist ones)is legally more reasonable than the instrumentalist arguments, still the latterseems to be more applicable and more powerful.
This is all about taking law as an effective variable in international politics as Henkin mentioned in his precious book, How Nations Behave and Morgentha, bout international norms and morality as a barrier for taking suitable actions by politicians.
Questions of Global Governance as a very hot debated issue on the one hand (if one happens to be enough imaginative or Futurist to discuss it in the 21st century, which I think we ought to be!), but using force under mentioned doctrine which erodes the very key principle of the post II world war international minimum legal order and the charter based political and legal structure, may and will for sure make serious and critical legal consequences for states that even used the benefit and utility of the theory in short in a widened horizon, since their presidents may not be able to order national security the way President Bush did this morning.
This reminds me of what professor Asgarkhani said once, (I’m paraphrasing) ``International Organizations, (from a realistic angle) are like insurance companies; you’d better not counting on them, because after the loss happened they would tell you that your insurance is not covering the whole loss you met.
At last, I want to raise a question too; after collapse of the eastern block, a new world dawned with a hyper active Security Council (also with a few unforgivable omissions like Rwanda), issuing resolutions on after another, giving permission for use of force (or some countries tend to interpret its resolutions in such a manner). After doctrines like saving nationals abroad, and Humanitarian Intervention, which became controversial among lawyers and states, isn’t it another sign to diagnose the disease that weakens most important principle of classic international law, i.e. Territorial integrity and the principle of non intervention? How can we discuss this as a sign for maximized attempts of the Hegemony to cook up its own plat du Juris?

No comments: