THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[JOZeldenrust]

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

That's never been the law before. And, if so, then all objections to the War in Iraq in 2003 are gone, because there were humanitarian issues raised among the justifications for war. I.e. - the justifications for the Iraq were included, but were not limited to humanitarian reasons and the protection of civilians from oppression and murder by the Iraqi state. So, once we go there and state that aggressive war can be waged to stop a government from violating fundamental human rights, then no war is illegal as long as the aggressor can point to some violation of fundamental rights by a government. As the old saying goes, treat every man after his just desert, who among us shall escape whipping?

Actually, the distinction is pretty clear: no state may use military force against civilians, including its own. Do so, and your actions are out of your country's jurisdiction, and the UN can legally sanction military action.

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not. Thus, if it is cause for war that Libya is murdering its people, other nations need not wait for UN sanction in order to proceed, nor are their actions illegal if the UN can't muster the political will to sanction it.

If UN sanction were required, then (by way of example) if Cuba invaded, say, the Dominican Republic, the US would have to wait until the UN sanctioned a response in order to repel the Cubans. The US certainly would not have to wait, and it would not be illegal for the US to join in the defense of an invaded nation.

There isn't a different rule for humanitarian justifications, is there? I mean, if the Dominican Republic started looking like it was going to fire on civilians in a political dispute within its borders, would the UN have to sanction action before anyone was permitted to stop the bloodshed? If so, what's the legal basis for that?

Indeed, such military action would be legal regardless of a UN mandate. However, the UN is a useful tool to reach a consensus. If the UNSC decides military action is justified, countries can act without fear of causing a massive intenational escalation.

IOW France could attack Libyan targets without fear of reprisal from the Russians or Chinese, because it knew the US got its back.

[JOZeldenrust]

By the way, Coito, when are you going to admit you were talking out of your arse on the subject of ballistics?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 75#p810675

[Coito ergo sum]

Very true - but, then my point still stands.

Those who opposed the Iraq War for the reason that it was illegal due to "no imminent threat" can no longer do so, because "imminent threat" is not required for a war to be legal. The risk to Iraqi civilians posed by Saddam, which is undisputed, was sufficient cause in and of itself.

Moreover, those who lamented the "rush to war" in 2003, and who aren't now lamenting the complete lack of non-military efforts made in Libya, aren't being particularly consistent....

[Coito ergo sum]

By the way, Coito, when are you going to admit you were talking out of your arse on the subject of ballistics?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 75#p810675

The thing is, I wasn't "talking out of my arse." http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 20#p802628 Moreover, in the very post where I brought up the issue I invited folks with a greater knowledge of physics than myself to clarify the issue. I wrote this:

Of course, the last time I took physics was 25 years ago, so I could have this wrong. Anyone good with physics? Am I close?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 55#p802392 You're correct, as far as I can tell, as to the physics.

But, I am also correct insofar as a bullet fired straight up will not hit a person with sufficient force to kill them (that much was proved/confirmed in the Mythbuster's episode). I was very clear in my explanation that once you veer off the vertical and enter a non-vertical ballistics trajectory. This is exactly what I typed:

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 55#p802383

I will also point out that I never argued the point with you, or accused you of being wrong about the physics.

I was immediately attacked by several people, not content with discussing the issue, they had to hurl rhetorical barbs and personal attacks. I was happy to discuss the physics, but most folks weren't doing that (at least not without complementing their posts with enough digs and jabs to get their jollies).

Also, in the post you linked to above, you accused me of "ridiculing" you. I did not at any point ridicule you (or anyone else).

I have no qualms about the suggestion that my math was wrong. I said as much in my very first post on the topic. What I'm not going to play ball with, though is the personal nonsense. That's why I lost interest in the thread.

[JOZeldenrust]

By the way, Coito, when are you going to admit you were talking out of your arse on the subject of ballistics?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 75#p810675

The thing is, I wasn't "talking out of my arse." http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 20#p802628 Moreover, in the very post where I brought up the issue I invited folks with a greater knowledge of physics than myself to clarify the issue. I wrote this:

Of course, the last time I took physics was 25 years ago, so I could have this wrong. Anyone good with physics? Am I close?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 55#p802392 You're correct, as far as I can tell, as to the physics.

But, I am also correct insofar as a bullet fired straight up will not hit a person with sufficient force to kill them (that much was proved/confirmed in the Mythbuster's episode). I was very clear in my explanation that once you veer off the vertical and enter a non-vertical ballistics trajectory. This is exactly what I typed:

Well, firing a bullet straight up is like dropping the bullet from the highest point it goes. It won't be coming down fast enough to kill anyone. It has to be fired at an angle sufficiently off the y axis (verticle) to have enough velocity to kill someone.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 55#p802383

I will also point out that I never argued the point with you, or accused you of being wrong about the physics.

I was immediately attacked by several people, not content with discussing the issue, they had to hurl rhetorical barbs and personal attacks. I was happy to discuss the physics, but most folks weren't doing that (at least not without complementing their posts with enough digs and jabs to get their jollies).

Also, in the post you linked to above, you accused me of "ridiculing" you. I did not at any point ridicule you (or anyone else).

I have no qualms about the suggestion that my math was wrong. I said as much in my very first post on the topic. What I'm not going to play ball with, though is the personal nonsense. That's why I lost interest in the thread.

The thread split was for a reason.

[MrJonno]

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not

The only war that is automatically legal is self defence (of course thats a very vague definition), any other war is only legal if authorised by the UN. How could it be any other way, you could hardly use the legal system of any of the combatants to determine if a war was legal or not

[sandinista]

you could hardly use the legal system of any of the combatants to determine if a war was legal or not

[JOZeldenrust]

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not

The only war that is automatically legal is self defence (of course thats a very vague definition), any other war is only legal if authorised by the UN. How could it be any other way, you could hardly use the legal system of any of the combatants to determine if a war was legal or not

We have international law for that, including the Geneva conventions. In a sense the UN is like a court: any theft is illegal, but only a sentence by a court makes it possible to legally punish the thief.

A war in self defense being legal isn't some natural law. It is a matter of international law. Also, self defense isn't the only valid reason. Defence of civilians, even civilians from another state, is as well. A state has primary responsibility to safeguard the right of its citizens, but also a limited responsibility to safeguard at least the universal human rights of all human beings. After all, they are universal human rights.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
The thread split was for a reason.

I've answered your question - haven't I?

[JOZeldenrust]

The thread split was for a reason.

I've answered your question - haven't I?

No, you haven't. Take it to the other thread, please. You're clogging up this one.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not

The only war that is automatically legal is self defence (of course thats a very vague definition), any other war is only legal if authorised by the UN. How could it be any other way, you could hardly use the legal system of any of the combatants to determine if a war was legal or not

That's incorrect.

Example where a non-self-defense war is legal without UN involvement: If someone attacks a NATO country, the rest of NATO doesn't have to wait for the UN to move in order to come to the defense of the attacked country. Example, if China attacked France, Italy could legally take military action against China without going to the UN. Italy was never attacked, but can attack China because it is aiding France.

[Coito ergo sum]

The thread split was for a reason.

I've answered your question - haven't I?

No, you haven't. Take it to the other thread, please. You're clogging up this one.

I have, and you brought it up.

[JOZeldenrust]

The thread split was for a reason.

I've answered your question - haven't I?

No, you haven't. Take it to the other thread, please. You're clogging up this one.

I have, and you brought it up.

No, you haven't, take it to the other thread.

I would've just PM'ed you if that were possible.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I get that distinction. However, wars are not legal or illegal because of UN sanction. Wars are legal or illegal irrespective of UN sanction. If a war is legal, it's legal, whether the UN sanctions it or not

The only war that is automatically legal is self defence (of course thats a very vague definition), any other war is only legal if authorised by the UN. How could it be any other way, you could hardly use the legal system of any of the combatants to determine if a war was legal or not

We have international law for that, including the Geneva conventions. In a sense the UN is like a court: any theft is illegal, but only a sentence by a court makes it possible to legally punish the thief.

A war in self defense being legal isn't some natural law. It is a matter of international law.

It's jus cogens, which is deeply rooted in natural law concepts. The UN Charter does not establish the right of self-defense, it recognizes it as already existing. "Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence..." It is a norm of international law that cannot be modified by treaty, including UN treaty, unless it is replaced by a new jus cogens principle.

Also, self defense isn't the only valid reason. Defence of civilians, even civilians from another state, is as well. A state has primary responsibility to safeguard the right of its citizens, but also a limited responsibility to safeguard at least the universal human rights of all human beings. After all, they are universal human rights.

Only if it constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. Chapter VII - UN Charter. There is no right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country just because a human right may have been violated. That's never been the case.

The Resolution on Libya was made under Chapter VII, although there had not been an act of aggression or breach of the peace or threat thereof.

The Libya situation is analogous to the US position on the matter in Vietnam. The US justified its intervention in Vietnam under the inherent right of collective self-defense referred to in Article 51. They said that even though south Vietnam was not a UN recognized country it had the right to self-defense, and the US had the right to act on its behalf. The same is going on here in Libya, and folks are stating that the "rebels" have the right to oppose the Libyan government and as such the European and other nations have the right to declare the rebels legitimate and act in their defense.

[Coito ergo sum]

The thread split was for a reason.

I've answered your question - haven't I?

No, you haven't. Take it to the other thread, please. You're clogging up this one.

I have, and you brought it up.

No, you haven't, take it to the other thread.

I would've just PM'ed you if that were possible.

Yes, I have. Specifically. Clearly. Unequivocally. But, whatever. I've already explained to Gallstones today on another thread that I blocked PMing because of some messages I received that were not particularly nice.

Look: this is something you brought up, not me. So you can feel free take it to the other thread.