HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,910882,00.html

A supreme international crime 
Any member of a government backing an aggressive war
will be open to prosecution

Mark Littman
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian

-At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of
international law identified by the tribunal and
subsequently accepted unanimously by the General
Assembly of the United Nations included that the
planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary
to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime
against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to
initiate a war of aggression... is not only an
international crime, it is the supreme international
crime". 


The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of
the United Nations Charter and hence of international
law unless it is authorised by a new and unambiguous
resolution of the security council. The Charter is
clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in
self-defence or authorised by the security council. 

Self-defence has no application here. Neither the
United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is
under attack or any threat of immediate attack by
Iraq. 

Nor is there any authority from the security council.
Resolution 1441 does not constitute any such authority
as the reference to "serious consequences" is not
sufficiently precise to justify war. Whatever the US
may have wanted, the resolution was deliberately vague
because the council had not agreed on the use of
force. A new resolution would therefore be required.
It would have to be in unambiguous terms authorising
the use of force. 

In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would,
be unlawful. On this point I agree completely with the
terms of the letter from 16 eminent international
lawyers to 10 Downing Street published in last
Friday's Guardian. 

What would be the consequences of such illegality?
Most obvious would be the human, economic and
environmental costs, including any further violence
that a war against Iraq might trigger. An illustration
of how unpredictable and incalculable such costs might
be is furnished by a recollection of the events of
1914. When the Hapsburg empire attacked the Serbs, the
campaign was expected to be short because of the
immense military superiority of Austria/Hungary over
the Kingdom of Serbia. Four years later, the Hapsburg
empire, together with those of Germany and Russia, lay
in ruins. A residue of bitterness and hatred was left
that bred an even worse war 20 years later in which
there were more than 50 million fatalities. Who can
say with certainty where today's threatened war might
lead? 

A second consequence would be of immense world
significance, for it would mean the end of the United
Nations and with it the final collapse of the efforts
of the past century to create effective international
institutions that would replace perpetual war with
perpetual peace. 

If attempts to create such international institutions
were abandoned, the clock would be turned back to a
time when nations had to depend for their security on
the uncertain and shifting patterns of alliances and
their own military defences. This would inevitably
lead to more being spent on swords and less on
ploughshares. 

A third consequence might be grave for members of the
governments that brought about this unlawful war. The
United Nations Charter is a treaty, one to which 192
out of a total of 196 sovereign states in the world
are parties. It takes precedence over all other
treaties. 

At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of
international law identified by the tribunal and
subsequently accepted unanimously by the General
Assembly of the United Nations included that the
planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary
to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime
against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to
initiate a war of aggression... is not only an
international crime, it is the supreme international
crime". 

It was for this crime that the German foreign minister
Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged. This
case and the subsequent case of former Chilean
president Pinochet show that it is not only
governments but also individuals who can be held
responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to try such
a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the
scope of the new International Criminal Court. It is,
however, open to any country in the world to accept
such jurisdiction. Some are already moving in that
direction. Instances are the proceedings in the
Belgian courts against Ariel Sharon in relation to
alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active
involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to
alleged crimes against humanity said to have been
committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments
actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war
against Iraq would be well advised to be cautious as
to the countries they visit during the remainder of
their lives. 

In a remarkable statement to the US Senate on February
12, Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia) described the
US position. He referred to it as the "extremely
destabilising and dangerous foreign policy debacle
that the world is currently witnessing" and said: "Our
challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box
of our own making." A refusal by the security council
to authorise hostilities should provide a graceful way
out of the box. Our government could lead the way. 

� Mark Littman QC is author of Kosovo: War and
Diplomacy (Centre for Policy Studies:
http://www.junepress.com/reviewpic.asp?BID=608). He
has written and lectured extensively on international
law. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bdn7KI.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================

Reply via email to