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]
Dear Hassan With full respect, I think your argument is mistaken. Any treaty, such as the UN Charter, must be interpreted in light of the subsequent practice of the parties to that treaty: how states "interpret" art.27(3) is not something that can be dismissed as simply mistaken, but is an element that goes into any subsequent interpretation. As it is, since 1971, there has no been state that I know of that has disputed that Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) can be passed even if one of the permanent members abstains. The last state to argue the case that you make was South Africa, before the International Court of Justice in a case relating to Namibia. South Africa argued that SCR 284 was invalid because 2 permanent members of the SC abstained in its voting. The Court - the highest judicial organ of the UN - replied that, "for a long period the voluntary abstention of a permanent member has consistently been interpreted as not constituting a bar to the adoption of resolutions by the Security Council". The partial text of the judgment is at: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inamsummary710621.htm Otherwise, for those of you with a law library handy, its in ICJ Rep 1971, at p.22. I hope this resolves your point. All the best Glen. > France, China and Russia) abstained from voting on this resolution. According to > Article 27 of the Charter of the UN, this resolution should NOT have even been > adopted, because it did not fulfill the requirement laid down by the Charter: it > did not acquire the CONCURRING VOTE OF ALL FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS. > For that resolution to have been adopted exposes the dual standards of the UN, > which punishes one country for violating the Charter by violating the Charter > itself!!! > > Under international law, and especially the Charter of the UN, Iraq is > absolutely right in refusing to cooperate with a resolution that was passed in > violation of the procedures demanded by the Charter. Implementing such resolutions > is a violation of international law, as Elias Davidsson explained in a message I > recently posted. > > I wonder why anti-sanctions groups do not take this issue into consideration, > and why it is not used in our campaigns. Apart from Ramsey Clark, no group has > used this issue in its campaigns. I believe this is a very important issue that we > should adopt, given that Iraq's crime was violating international law. > > HZ > > _________________________________________________________ > Check your email always! Anytime, anywhere, with Maktoob Mobile > http://www.maktoob.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk