The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
I'm trying to research about 'justifications' and speculations concerning the 'no fly' zones, 'partition' and the ongoing bombings of Iraq. Washington and London claim the policy here is backed by UN resolutions 678, 687 and 688 but on re-reading them the evidence looks scanty to say the least. Has the US/UK specified which clauses purport to justify the US-UK (-Turkish, Saudi, Kuwaiti) patrols/attacks? Have there been any good analyses of the policy's relationship to international law? Doesn't the policy's clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty massively outweigh any shreds of its arguable legality? Other than Richard Becker's article (IAC) there's not much I can find on speculation either. Fraternally, Neil Sammonds (Mariam Appeal) Mariam Appeal t: +44 (0)207 872 5451 f: +44 (0)207 753 2731 e: neil@mariamappeal.com w: www.mariamappeal.com -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://welcome.to/casi