• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Question re: International politics, UN Security Council, Iran

Shug

TRIBE Member
Hypothetical:

US tables a motion for sanctions and/or military force to the UN Security Council against Iran, based on shakey non-evidence of a nuclear arms program and their "security threat against the world", and Russia or China vetos it.

US disregards the failed motion, and takes military action against Iran in the form of air strikes against known nuclear processing sites.

What happens when a UN Security Council member takes military action without the approval of the rest of the UN, and in fact is in direct opposition to veto-weilding members?

Would that UN-disregarding nation be held accountable or liable in any way, in an international court? Are they seen as "unjustified aggressors"? Is it criminal? Is this the same thing that happened, in a global-political sense, when the US-led coalition went to war with Iraq in 2003?
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Shug said:
Would that UN-disregarding nation be held accountable or liable in any way, in an international court? Are they seen as "unjustified aggressors"? Is it criminal? Is this the same thing that happened, in a global-political sense, when the US-led coalition went to war with Iraq in 2003?


There was no UN resolution for or against the invasion of Iraq tabled to the security council. The only example I can think of that involved an invasion after a veto would by in Hungary in 56 (if memory serves) which is a toughy because technically it was already occupied at the time and it was quelling a revolution.

My understanding is that as long as the member holds a veto or is in control of a veto (ie the french selling there veto numerous times and the US vetoing anything against Israel by default) nothing can really happen to them. If they do not hold a veto they can be sanctioned up the ass and then taken to court over damages (Iraq/Kuwait although again this didn't face the Un until after the fact)
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
virtually every member of the security council has acted in definace of the UN charter or refused to recognize UN jurisdiction over varoius issues (russia, china, US, france w/ respect to their conduct in foreign colonies/states)

china and the US being the most egregious violators, its kind of funny that they even bother refering stuff to the council, you wont see any of these states go before an international criminal court for actions they believe were in the best intersts of their state, (be those intersts evil or actually good).

criminal courts are equally politicsized, but are an idea we should continue to strive for, milosovic died while waiting trial, UN member states have offered sanctuary to war lords fleeing charges of international crimes in other UN states (read: african states)
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
How do you bring a country with a veto to court, they can simply veto any resolution that would bring them to court.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
First of all, the idea of there being an international "court" where you can "prosecute" nations is strictly a function of the willingness to recognise and enforce the rules. Otherwise there is no such thing as international law--it's a huge fallacy...it actually doesn't exist. Genocide in Rwanda, so illegal. But you wouldn't think so based on the lack of enforcement.

UN General Assembly resolutions are NOT "legally" binding, but Security Council resolutions are "legally" binding. The concept of a "binding" resolution is again strinctly a function of enforcement. A good example is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait--the system ostensibly worked the way it's supposed to: proper UNSC procedures followed by an international coalition to militarily enforce the resolution.

The UNSC could say all it wants about an "illegal" US invasion of Iran and it would amount to zilch because nobody would be willing, or even want, to enforce such a thing against the US--who would veto it anyway.

The UN is basically for show in that regard. It works really well to establish a common framework for dialog and international standards, though.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
In May 2003, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483 which recognized the U.S. and U.K. as "occupying powers" in Iraq and calls upon them to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people and create conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future.

So basically, the UNSC did not endorse the use of force, but once the invasion was successful, they endorsed the occupation and subsequent reconstruction efforts.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
In May 2003, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483 which recognized the U.S. and U.K. as "occupying powers" in Iraq and calls upon them to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people and create conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future.

So basically, the UNSC did not endorse the use of force, but once the invasion was successful, they endorsed the occupation and subsequent reconstruction efforts.
that's some endorsement

edit: I mean I havent read the thing but..
 

Shug

TRIBE Member
With the wording from above, and especially considering the source of the paraphrasing ;), I would say it sounds more like a chastisement, than an endorsement.
 
Top