The basis of international law is the UN Charter which stipulates that one sovereign nation cannot attack another. Seems fair. However, Article 51 has an exception.
If you are attacked you can respond and this extends to collective security; coming to the aid of an ally. Critically for this morning’s discussion there is no provision for a pre-emptive attack to thwart an enemy before an invasion.
A drafting error perhaps. But before we look a little deeper let me take you back in time. To Niagara Falls on the night of December 29, 1837. Here, had you been standing on the bank in your woollen greatcoat, mittens and tuque you would have seen the Caroline, a wooden American ship in flames, lighting up the night as it sailed towards the waterfall’s edge.
This is relevant. Stay with me.
NZ must not support a US-led invasion of Iran, Helen Clark says
VIDEO CREDIT: Stuff
The Caroline was attacked by a Canadian militia while it was based in American waters. A violation of US sovereignty which annoyed Washington.
However the British, who governed Canada, responded that the boat was being used to supply a group of rebels, making it a legitimate military target.
Diplomacy ensued and a question was raised: when can one nation violate the sovereignty of another? The answer was the Caroline Test. When there is a “…necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation”.
So, did the UN Charter supersede the Caroline Test, or does it remain as a silent codicil? There has been more debate on this issue than over the wisdom of Trevor Chappell’s underarm bowling scandal. The accepted consensus is that it is legal to violate another’s sovereignty to prevent an imminent attack.
But only an imminent attack. Not a potential future one. Which brings us to the current urban renewal occurring in various Iranian cities. Helen Clark and other defenders of the rules-based order are critical of the US and Israeli attacks because there was no exigent threat.
The claim that this attack further undermines the rules-based order is valid. I’ve written previously that I think this order was a fiction but, perhaps, this fiction had a value. Perhaps not. It didn’t help Ukraine. Nor Israel; that has been subject to repeated violations of its sovereignty for decades as Iran-backed proxies fired missiles into their cities, arranged kidnappings, suicide bombings and, in October 2023, an invasion.
There is a saying often repeated by Israelis. When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. The regime in Tehran has, since its inception in 1979, been open about their desire to destroy the Jewish state. Crowds are encouraged to chant Death to America, Death to Israel. Their late Supreme Leader made clear his desire to remove the cancerous tumour of the Zionist entity.
But no evidence has yet been presented that Tehran was on the cusp of another wave of attacks against the sliver of real estate housing the remnant of the Jewish population that once was spread throughout the Middle East and Europe. And that is not the justification being made.
Jerusalem and Washington claim that the ayatollahs were rebuilding their nuclear and ballistic missile programs and that, had they succeeded, this was an existential threat to Israel and, by extension, the United States. This is disputed but, for the balance of this discussion, let’s put aside past American deception with weapons of mass destruction and assume it is true.
The rules-based order has failed to restrain Iran from decades of indirect attacks against Israel and provides no mechanism for the victim of this ongoing belligerence to use force to neutralise future violence.
We should not doubt the sincerity of leaders like Clark and others who have consistently upheld the idea of a world governed by rules; nor assume that an unconstrained world order is benign with respect to small nations like New Zealand.
Calls for Christopher Luxon to denounce the ongoing military action because it violates international law are misguided. There are valid reasons to critique the terribly named operation Epic Fury, to challenge the claim that Iran was rebuilding her arsenal of nuclear weapons and to question the wisdom of killing foreign leaders.
There is also an unrealistic demand that the Jewish state adheres to an international set of laws that not only fails to provide her protection but has been weaponised against it.
I believe that the war is both justified and necessary but my pro-Israeli bias clouds objectivity. Others who are commenting with such passion may wish to reflect if they are similarly afflicted........The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
A drafting error perhaps. But before we look a little deeper let me take you back in time. To Niagara Falls on the night of December 29, 1837. Here, had you been standing on the bank in your woollen greatcoat, mittens and tuque you would have seen the Caroline, a wooden American ship in flames, lighting up the night as it sailed towards the waterfall’s edge.
This is relevant. Stay with me.
NZ must not support a US-led invasion of Iran, Helen Clark says
VIDEO CREDIT: Stuff
The Caroline was attacked by a Canadian militia while it was based in American waters. A violation of US sovereignty which annoyed Washington.
However the British, who governed Canada, responded that the boat was being used to supply a group of rebels, making it a legitimate military target.
Diplomacy ensued and a question was raised: when can one nation violate the sovereignty of another? The answer was the Caroline Test. When there is a “…necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation”.
So, did the UN Charter supersede the Caroline Test, or does it remain as a silent codicil? There has been more debate on this issue than over the wisdom of Trevor Chappell’s underarm bowling scandal. The accepted consensus is that it is legal to violate another’s sovereignty to prevent an imminent attack.
But only an imminent attack. Not a potential future one. Which brings us to the current urban renewal occurring in various Iranian cities. Helen Clark and other defenders of the rules-based order are critical of the US and Israeli attacks because there was no exigent threat.
The claim that this attack further undermines the rules-based order is valid. I’ve written previously that I think this order was a fiction but, perhaps, this fiction had a value. Perhaps not. It didn’t help Ukraine. Nor Israel; that has been subject to repeated violations of its sovereignty for decades as Iran-backed proxies fired missiles into their cities, arranged kidnappings, suicide bombings and, in October 2023, an invasion.
There is a saying often repeated by Israelis. When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. The regime in Tehran has, since its inception in 1979, been open about their desire to destroy the Jewish state. Crowds are encouraged to chant Death to America, Death to Israel. Their late Supreme Leader made clear his desire to remove the cancerous tumour of the Zionist entity.
But no evidence has yet been presented that Tehran was on the cusp of another wave of attacks against the sliver of real estate housing the remnant of the Jewish population that once was spread throughout the Middle East and Europe. And that is not the justification being made.
Jerusalem and Washington claim that the ayatollahs were rebuilding their nuclear and ballistic missile programs and that, had they succeeded, this was an existential threat to Israel and, by extension, the United States. This is disputed but, for the balance of this discussion, let’s put aside past American deception with weapons of mass destruction and assume it is true.
The rules-based order has failed to restrain Iran from decades of indirect attacks against Israel and provides no mechanism for the victim of this ongoing belligerence to use force to neutralise future violence.
We should not doubt the sincerity of leaders like Clark and others who have consistently upheld the idea of a world governed by rules; nor assume that an unconstrained world order is benign with respect to small nations like New Zealand.
Calls for Christopher Luxon to denounce the ongoing military action because it violates international law are misguided. There are valid reasons to critique the terribly named operation Epic Fury, to challenge the claim that Iran was rebuilding her arsenal of nuclear weapons and to question the wisdom of killing foreign leaders.
There is also an unrealistic demand that the Jewish state adheres to an international set of laws that not only fails to provide her protection but has been weaponised against it.
I believe that the war is both justified and necessary but my pro-Israeli bias clouds objectivity. Others who are commenting with such passion may wish to reflect if they are similarly afflicted........The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
7 comments:
Kerr Starmer is another proponent of "International Law" and used this as an excuse to prevent the US from initially accessing UK bases. Wow! Public pressure has made him backtrack. Another example is Starmers willingness to give back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius(again a decision based on International Law). However, the International Law is not clearcut as the US have a 99 year lease on the Islands for their military base. A vital strategic asset for them. So, Starmers adherence to the law might trigger yet another falling out with the country that was once their closest ally. No longer the case it seems. Who is going to defend the UK if they need defending? Their military, according to senior military leaders, are woefully underfunded.
Why are countries alienating former allies and siding with terrorist regimes?
Damien, Clark, Hipkens, you, and I are not qualified to say if international law was broken. However, in the past few days the Herald published articles by Lady Deborah Chambers Samira Taghavi, an Iranian. Both these lawyers arguments that the law has not been breached.
Even if the law was breached, the US and Isreal did the right thing to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons.
No one likes war, but the right thing has been done here. In an interview with Mark Levin over the weekend Steve Witkoff said during the negotiations uranium for non military purposes was offered. Free. And turned down. Where else are you left to go?
The notion of international law is a joke. Ever since the last years of the nineteenth century what is called international relations has been primarily shaped by the clash of rival imperialist powers contesting the world's resources, markets and labour. This contest has led to two world wars and now threatens a third. The illusion that there is any such thing as a "rules-based order" only arose in the first few decades following World War Two when preponderant American military and economic power suppressed inter-imperialist rivalries for a period. Those rivalries re-emerged as American power relatively declined, albeit with a new player, China now in the game.
The US doesn't care about the people of Iran or the fate of the Jews. It is acting in Iran in pursuance of its own imperial interests, in the region and globally. This global strategy is being played out on what Israeli journalist Havir Rettig Gur calls "a second chessboard." He writes perceptively: "But there is a second chessboard, vastly larger on which the United States and China are the primary players. On this board the central question of the next 30 years is being worked out: whether the American-led global order survives, or whether China displaces it. Every significant American foreign policy decision, from the pivot to Asia to the tariff war to the posture in the Pacific, is ultimately a move on this board."
It is necessary not to lump the US and Israel together when discussing motives for the attack on Iran. The US is waging an aggressive imperial war, Israel a defensive war, albeit a pre-emptive one. There is no reason to doubt the Jew-Hating Iranian regime when it says it wants to remove "the Zionist cancer" from the world, or that it would use nuclear weapons in pursuit of this aim if it ever acquired them.
It is pertinent, to state, that Iran since the "coming" of the first Ayatollah has been a Nation that has defied any Western Law, including that of UN's Doctrine[s] which is interesting that Iran sits as a Member of the UN.
The UN who has over the past years failed to "intervene" in any Nation disruptions, other than to place (at great expense) UN staff of the ground in those Nations.
Not that said "placement" (in Africa, that list is long) actually achieved any outcomes, for those Nations going forward.
If it were not for the Citizens of Iran, the Western World would not be aware of what has taken place since the first Ayatollah to the second (recently deceased) - the atrocities applied to those citizens - strangely has not had a "word of condemnation" from the UN or any Western Nation.
Even of recent weeks, "crickets" on what has taken place.
Something that Helen Clark, could of led, whilst a highly paid staffer at the UN - did she - No.
Remember, that Iran has had the finger firmly "pointed at it" over the 'funding of Islamic terrorism" in the Middle East, the 'shadow' in the background of the Israeli attack from Gaza, the assistance to Islamic rebels at in Yemen and their attacks on shipping, which leads to the "we must ponder" if their is " a helping hand across Europe, from Iran, with all the Immigrants from Middle East Countries" with potential to create "an uprising" [armed?] within those Countries?
If, If, If, were is the UN?
Only the NZMSM (& AUT) make Helen Clark a 'figure of importance', but has she stood with those who condemn all atrocities against the Women of Iran? - No and this has been very quickly brought to the Nation of NZ's attention, by the very people who are aware. .
Damien Grant seems to have a very narrow view of the scope of international law and his description of a few words would arguably fit the Peace of Westphalia 1648 better than the UN Charter. On the whole, I do concede most points he makes, but would point out that international law is an evolving entity and Art. 51 is no longer interpreted by most scholars in the field as it was in 1945. The Caroline affair (which predated the UN Charter by 108 years) has continued to cast a long shadow over the issue of when a pre-emptive strike is justified and I suspect I am not far off the mark when I say that most international law scholars now regard a strike as 'legal' if the threat posed by the other party is severe enough even if an attack may not be 'imminent'. But it remains a matter of vigorous debate (as does the R2P [responsibility to protect] doctrine which has previously been used to justify strikes on nations with despotic leaderships; the doctrine isn't as popular now because it was blatantly abused by NATO in Libya in 2011).
International law gets bad press when it fails because of lack of enforcement. Fortunately, it does have success stories to tell, such as the Montreal Convention 1987 and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Had Maori managed to stay hidden under the Long White Cloud would international law have prevented any of the major powers arriving in the last 100 years, guns blazing, and claiming NZ was now their rightful possession ?
Maori should be eternally grateful that the Brits tipped up first with their relatively benign colonization.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.