The very first piece on this blog that was not the final drafts of the constitution was a discussion of the theory and history behind Edan, That article focused on Edan as a stable, personal, just, non-territorial nation. But it left out a portion of the history of the formation of Edan. That portion was a desire to assist stateless people.
'Refugee' means 'a person outside of their home nation because of persecution, actual or feared'
'Stateless Person' means either 'a person that has no legal recognition of citizenship with any nation (de jure statelessness)' or 'a person outside of their nation of citizenship who cannot avail themselves of the benefits of their nationality for valid reasons such as a state of war, loss of documentation, etc. (de facto statelessness or undocumented statelessness)'.
Not all refugees are stateless and not all stateless people are refugees.
Without citizenship it can be effectively impossible to travel - a stateless person often cannot cross borders, obtain a visa, or (often) apply for asylum. On a day-to-day level they often cannot legally hold a job, gain licences or certifications, get an education, receive health care, etc. Such people commonly cannot register such events and births, marriages, and deaths. In many nations they may be detained at will. In short, by being stateless they both can't live where they are and can't leave where they are.
The UNHCR estimates that there are about 11 million stateless people in the world (equal to the population of Belgium) and a large number of these stateless people are multi-generational families in places like Palestine and the Balkans where stateless parents give birth to stateless children.
One of the goals of the Kingdom is to achieve a level of diplomatic and political recognition as a Non-Territorial Nation that Edan can assist stateless people in finding new citizenship either directly,by offering Edanian citizenship, or indirectly by providing them with the minimum level of identity documentation to allow them to seek asylum/citizenship elsewhere.
King Richard sees this as 'showing love to the foreigner' in a profound way.
The King is well aware that many Edanians are eager to aid persecuted Christians in Iraq and other parts of the world.
So is King Richard. When Edan is capable of helping refugees and the stateless persecuted Christians will be a primary goal for assistance. When Edan was founded in 1999 it was in the face of severe persecution of Christians in Sudan, India, and Chechnya (among many other places). It is well documented bythe International Society for Human Rights (based in Germany), Civitas UK, and many other organizations that 80% of all religious persecution is the persecution of Christians. In 2013, before the attacks in Iraq and the Levant, it was estimated that at least 200 million Christians were being persecuted or outright attacked for their faith. This means that if you were to gather all the world's persecuted and oppressed Christians together it would be the 6th largest nation in the world .
Putanother way, the number of Christians being persecuted in the world right now exceeds the combined populations of the citizens of all religions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel combined.
So what can Edan do?
Right now we can pray and educate. We are not yet at the 'critical mass' needed to gain the economic and political wight needed to do more. As much as we have grown, as much as we have already done, we need to be much larger before we can reach the point of political and diplomatic recognition.
Maybe the most important thing you can do is help Edan grow. Talk to others, use the flyers and handouts we have sent in the past. Pay your taxes. Get Edan to the size where we cannot be ignored. A Media Kit will be issued soon so that you can canvas radio, print, universities, and television stations - King Richard will talk to anyone of good will about Edan.
In a very real way every person, every household that we add to Edan will one day be another stateless family given a new home and another Christian saved from persecution. We can get there, we will get there.
St. Michael Archangel, defend us in battle....
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
May 13, 2014
Sovereignty and International Law [guest post by Mr. Floyd, Edanian Citizen]
What makes a country a country? Is it the fact that countries have millions of citizens? Is it due to countries being in the United Nations? Most people do not think about this issue, which is a key part of micronationalism. Micronations, as described by Microwiki, the micronation encyclopedia, are “small unrecognized nations which are often eccentric in nature” (Main Page). Micronations are self-declared independent states that wish to become countries. Micronations are generally groups of people who declare themselves countries. There are hundreds of micronations that currently exist as simulations of real world states or legitimate new nation projects that have declared independence from their associated macronation, or what micronationalists consider conventional countries. There are micronations with many types of governments and diverse cultures, as well as holidays and customs, which are created by their members. No micronation has been accepted into the United Nations, but they have obtained de facto recognition through negotiations and visits with ambassadors from some countries. Because of legal loopholes, legislation and international treaties, micronations should be considered sovereign nations and recognized as such.
First, there are many legal loopholes that allow for micronations to exist in the world. One of the most utilized loopholes is the Treason Act of 1495 which states that “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” (Preamble) This is generally interpreted by scholars as any person acting as the de facto sovereign in a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations will be considered the monarch and it is thus illegal to deny their reign. One notable micronation, known as the Principality of Hutt River, declared independence under this provision in the Australian legal code. The self-proclaimed prince stated he would become a new nation loyal to England. The police came to his farm-nation as they claimed to be independent and did not pay taxes. After the farmer went to court with the Australian government, the court ruled it was illegal for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide by their laws Another piece of legislations that is used by United States citizens declaring their homes as self-governing is the Declaration of Independence, which was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776 which affirms “That whenever any Form (sic) of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This proves that the United States was founded on the idea that the people have a right to declare independence and to rule themselves through a government by the people if the government does become authoritarian or undemocratic in nature. Many micronationalists believe that most micronations are not in touch with the people and thus are not compelled to take their best wishes into account.
Secondly, international agreements and treaties confirm that micronations have a right to sovereignty. The Atlantic Charter reads: “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” This was signed by the US, the UK and many other nations in 1941. In a similar notion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966, states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…” Self determination is the right of people to rule over themselves and create their own state. These treaties clearly state that people have the right, under international law, to create their own nation and rule over it freely.
Finally, the most well-known and widely used piece of information for micronationalists is the Montevideo Convention. For the western hemisphere, the treaty outlines the duties and of a state in the international community. In the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, article one proclaims, “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Micronations do obtain governments, and most if not all have full constitutions. A defined territory generally consists of the houses of its members. A permanent population is comprised of the micronation’s citizens, and it has the capacity to enter relations with other states if they are asked. “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”, stated in article three, proves that even without recognition, micronations can operate as international entities. Article five goes on to state, “The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever,” meaning that countries have no right to impede the workings of micronations. This is explained more in article eight with the clause “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” Even without recognition, this applies to any state that fits the criteria affirmed in the treaty.
On the contrary, many people do not believe micronations are true countries because they cannot exhibit sovereignty over their land. According to Joseph Duncan, President of the People’s Republic of Tiana, “Well [if a person said I could not exhibit sovereignty], I'd say – ‘you're under arrest according to section 5, subsection 6, article 2c of the criminal code of the People's Republic of Tiana. You have the right to remain silent.’” By this statement, he is affirming the fact that micronations can enforce their own laws within their land. The definition of sovereignty, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “Supreme power especially an over body politic,” meaning that micronations can exert sovereignty if they can create their own laws and enforce them. This shows that micronations are sovereign states because they can be free from external influence through having their own government that creates policies and laws. Others will say that states must be a member of the United Nations to be a country, but nowhere in legal documents, unlike the declarative method to statehood, does it state that that is required of them. If this theory is correct, then no countries would have existed until after World War II and if a state needs consent to declare independence, then the United States is still a part of England.
Are micronations legitimate countries? Evidence shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the terms of the montevideo [sic] convention.” says Duncan. Since many micronations meet all the criteria necessary to become a state according to the international community, they should be given the sovereignty they deserve. All legal documents say that they are equal to current states, so they should be given the rights they are entitled to have.
Works Cited
Atlantic Charter. Treaty. August 1941.
Duncan, Joseph, Right Honourable, Sir, MZP DSU OWC KBOS OZL ZPO HZW
KC MLEB MLLB, Prime Minister, Minister of Health and Minister of Culture of The Kingdom of Zealandia, Supreme People’s Commissar of Tiana, Sultan of Hakka, Member of the Zonian Parliament, Flanderensisian Ambassador to the United States, Marquis and Viscount. Personal Interview. 1 February. 2012.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty. 16 December. 1966.
“Main Page.” Microwiki. 6 Feb. 2012. Microwiki.org.uk. 18 Jan. 2012
< http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Main_Page>
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 26 December. 1933.
First, there are many legal loopholes that allow for micronations to exist in the world. One of the most utilized loopholes is the Treason Act of 1495 which states that “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” (Preamble) This is generally interpreted by scholars as any person acting as the de facto sovereign in a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations will be considered the monarch and it is thus illegal to deny their reign. One notable micronation, known as the Principality of Hutt River, declared independence under this provision in the Australian legal code. The self-proclaimed prince stated he would become a new nation loyal to England. The police came to his farm-nation as they claimed to be independent and did not pay taxes. After the farmer went to court with the Australian government, the court ruled it was illegal for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide by their laws Another piece of legislations that is used by United States citizens declaring their homes as self-governing is the Declaration of Independence, which was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776 which affirms “That whenever any Form (sic) of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This proves that the United States was founded on the idea that the people have a right to declare independence and to rule themselves through a government by the people if the government does become authoritarian or undemocratic in nature. Many micronationalists believe that most micronations are not in touch with the people and thus are not compelled to take their best wishes into account.
Secondly, international agreements and treaties confirm that micronations have a right to sovereignty. The Atlantic Charter reads: “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” This was signed by the US, the UK and many other nations in 1941. In a similar notion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966, states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…” Self determination is the right of people to rule over themselves and create their own state. These treaties clearly state that people have the right, under international law, to create their own nation and rule over it freely.
Finally, the most well-known and widely used piece of information for micronationalists is the Montevideo Convention. For the western hemisphere, the treaty outlines the duties and of a state in the international community. In the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, article one proclaims, “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Micronations do obtain governments, and most if not all have full constitutions. A defined territory generally consists of the houses of its members. A permanent population is comprised of the micronation’s citizens, and it has the capacity to enter relations with other states if they are asked. “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”, stated in article three, proves that even without recognition, micronations can operate as international entities. Article five goes on to state, “The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever,” meaning that countries have no right to impede the workings of micronations. This is explained more in article eight with the clause “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” Even without recognition, this applies to any state that fits the criteria affirmed in the treaty.
On the contrary, many people do not believe micronations are true countries because they cannot exhibit sovereignty over their land. According to Joseph Duncan, President of the People’s Republic of Tiana, “Well [if a person said I could not exhibit sovereignty], I'd say – ‘you're under arrest according to section 5, subsection 6, article 2c of the criminal code of the People's Republic of Tiana. You have the right to remain silent.’” By this statement, he is affirming the fact that micronations can enforce their own laws within their land. The definition of sovereignty, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “Supreme power especially an over body politic,” meaning that micronations can exert sovereignty if they can create their own laws and enforce them. This shows that micronations are sovereign states because they can be free from external influence through having their own government that creates policies and laws. Others will say that states must be a member of the United Nations to be a country, but nowhere in legal documents, unlike the declarative method to statehood, does it state that that is required of them. If this theory is correct, then no countries would have existed until after World War II and if a state needs consent to declare independence, then the United States is still a part of England.
Are micronations legitimate countries? Evidence shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the terms of the montevideo [sic] convention.” says Duncan. Since many micronations meet all the criteria necessary to become a state according to the international community, they should be given the sovereignty they deserve. All legal documents say that they are equal to current states, so they should be given the rights they are entitled to have.
Works Cited
Atlantic Charter. Treaty. August 1941.
Duncan, Joseph, Right Honourable, Sir, MZP DSU OWC KBOS OZL ZPO HZW
KC MLEB MLLB, Prime Minister, Minister of Health and Minister of Culture of The Kingdom of Zealandia, Supreme People’s Commissar of Tiana, Sultan of Hakka, Member of the Zonian Parliament, Flanderensisian Ambassador to the United States, Marquis and Viscount. Personal Interview. 1 February. 2012.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty. 16 December. 1966.
“Main Page.” Microwiki. 6 Feb. 2012. Microwiki.org.uk. 18 Jan. 2012
< http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Main_Page>
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 26 December. 1933.
Mar 3, 2014
Europe and North America Abandon Democracy
Not too long ago Ukraine descended into violence. While the overall story is oft-repeated the details seem elusive on most news sources, so please forgive me as we sum up.
...
Ukraine is insolvent: the nation is so deeply in debt that it needs $17 billion USD (almost 10% of Ukraine's annual GDP) to meets its obligations and continue functioning, and it needs this money relatively quickly. It was hoping to receive $20 Bn USD in loans from the European Union so began negotiating a trade deal with the EU that would include such a loan.
The European Union declined and offered only about $830 million USD in loans and their trade deal required Ukraine to change many internal laws, some of which had no direct bearing on trade.
Russian then offered $15 Bn USD in loans with a trade agreement that included reducing energy costs to the Ukraine.
Up against the wall the president of Ukraine was effectively forced to abandon the possibility of a trade deal with the EU and accept a deal with Russia because only Russia was willing to meet Ukraine's needs. This was announced by the Ukrainian government on November 21st, 2013.
Protests began almost immediately. Some Ukrainian citizens who wish for closer ties to the EU began to gather in Kyiv to protest the trade deal with Russia. By the 24th estimates on the number of protestors ranged as high as 100,000 (although the actual numbers were probably closer to 20,000) and the protestors began breaking police cordons and physically clashing with police. The police responded with tear gas and batons. The protestors began being encouraged and organized by opposition political leaders. The protests also began allowing neo-Nazi groups to take the elad in violence against police forces.
This is not hyperbole or Godwin's Law - actual self-described neo-Nazi groups led violent attacks on police where isolated groups of police were attacked and their equipment stolen to arm protestors. These protestors, now with riot gear, then continued the escalation of violence.
Protestors begin assaulting and seizing government buildings, including city hall of the capitol, while continuing violence against police. The protestors used petrol bombs, improvised weapons, and captured firearms to attack police and used arson and burning barricades to distract and repel police. By the middle of January protestors and police were being killed as well as injured.
At the height of the protests prior to any protestors dying the Ukrainian parliament passed anti-protest laws that sparked greater protests and more violence; the laws were repealed and insttead the government offered to release already-arrested protestors and offer amnesty to other protestors if government buildings were released. This exchange of prisoners for buildings was completed by about the 16th of February. On the 18th the protestors began their assaults on police lines and by the 20th had re-taken all the surrendered buildings and taken others, as well.
During this same time the opposition leaders, who were still leading the protestors, were negotiating with foreign powers for loans and support for when they has succeeded in seizing control of the government. Aresniy Yatsenyuk met with Angela Merkel in person urgin her to impose sanctions and aid the protestors so help them take over the Ukrainian government.
The opposition tot he elected government in Kyiv was being reflected in greater Ukraine with the Ukrainian-speaking West seizing most government buildings seized by protestors but the Russian-Speaking eastern and southern fringes marked with pro-government forces aiding police is resisting protestors.
By February 20th enough members of parliament had fled or defected that the opposition parties gained control of the Ukrainian parliament. The president agrees to early elections, has his powers slashed, and several other changes occur in the next few days. Opposition leader Yulia Tymeshenko is released from prison at the vote of the opposition-controlled parliament. By the 23rd the opposition leader and protest organizer Aresniy Yatsenyuk is made Prime Minister as other opposition leaders are placed in charge of the Ukrainian government.
As this is occurring protestors in Crimea, which is largely Russian-speaking, are rejecting the new government in Kyiv as illegitimate. The regional parliament in Crimea states that they will vote to decide if they will remain part of Ukraine and armed men seize airfields and government buildings in the Crimea. The brand new government in Kyiv states they will not allow the breakup of Ukraine.
The new government also beings pleading with Europe and the US for - billions of dollars in loans to prop up the Ukrainian economy.
The crimean regional parliament asks for help from Russia to aid it in its claims to autonomy. Russia agrees and sends troops too support the new Republic of Crimea.
...
We have been continually surprised at the political developments of the last few years where ostensibly Democratic governments in Europe and North America vocally and materially support the violent overthrow of various governments in the world. This may be most surprising in Ukraine.
Let us be very clear - what occurred in Ukraine is the violent overthrow of the lawfully-elected government by an armed mob led by the losers of the last election. This was not prompted by mass oppression, nor was it triggered by civil rights violations or the illegal grasp for power - the pretext for this armed insurrection was the government's refusal to sign a trade agreement that would have forced Ukraine to modify its internal laws to be advantageous to European nations without giving Ukraine the loans it needed to remain solvent.
There are already protests in large cities across Ukraine against this new, mob-seated, government by Ukrainians that reject its legitimacy - if more protests arise led by the new opposition what side shal Europe, the BBC, and similar groups take? Will the violent protestors still have the right to change the government via force?
The last five years have clearly demonstrated through the words and deeds of European and North American political leaders, pundits, and academics that none of them actually believe that Democracy works. What shall they replace it with?
...
Ukraine is insolvent: the nation is so deeply in debt that it needs $17 billion USD (almost 10% of Ukraine's annual GDP) to meets its obligations and continue functioning, and it needs this money relatively quickly. It was hoping to receive $20 Bn USD in loans from the European Union so began negotiating a trade deal with the EU that would include such a loan.
The European Union declined and offered only about $830 million USD in loans and their trade deal required Ukraine to change many internal laws, some of which had no direct bearing on trade.
Russian then offered $15 Bn USD in loans with a trade agreement that included reducing energy costs to the Ukraine.
Up against the wall the president of Ukraine was effectively forced to abandon the possibility of a trade deal with the EU and accept a deal with Russia because only Russia was willing to meet Ukraine's needs. This was announced by the Ukrainian government on November 21st, 2013.
Protests began almost immediately. Some Ukrainian citizens who wish for closer ties to the EU began to gather in Kyiv to protest the trade deal with Russia. By the 24th estimates on the number of protestors ranged as high as 100,000 (although the actual numbers were probably closer to 20,000) and the protestors began breaking police cordons and physically clashing with police. The police responded with tear gas and batons. The protestors began being encouraged and organized by opposition political leaders. The protests also began allowing neo-Nazi groups to take the elad in violence against police forces.
This is not hyperbole or Godwin's Law - actual self-described neo-Nazi groups led violent attacks on police where isolated groups of police were attacked and their equipment stolen to arm protestors. These protestors, now with riot gear, then continued the escalation of violence.
Protestors begin assaulting and seizing government buildings, including city hall of the capitol, while continuing violence against police. The protestors used petrol bombs, improvised weapons, and captured firearms to attack police and used arson and burning barricades to distract and repel police. By the middle of January protestors and police were being killed as well as injured.
At the height of the protests prior to any protestors dying the Ukrainian parliament passed anti-protest laws that sparked greater protests and more violence; the laws were repealed and insttead the government offered to release already-arrested protestors and offer amnesty to other protestors if government buildings were released. This exchange of prisoners for buildings was completed by about the 16th of February. On the 18th the protestors began their assaults on police lines and by the 20th had re-taken all the surrendered buildings and taken others, as well.
During this same time the opposition leaders, who were still leading the protestors, were negotiating with foreign powers for loans and support for when they has succeeded in seizing control of the government. Aresniy Yatsenyuk met with Angela Merkel in person urgin her to impose sanctions and aid the protestors so help them take over the Ukrainian government.
The opposition tot he elected government in Kyiv was being reflected in greater Ukraine with the Ukrainian-speaking West seizing most government buildings seized by protestors but the Russian-Speaking eastern and southern fringes marked with pro-government forces aiding police is resisting protestors.
By February 20th enough members of parliament had fled or defected that the opposition parties gained control of the Ukrainian parliament. The president agrees to early elections, has his powers slashed, and several other changes occur in the next few days. Opposition leader Yulia Tymeshenko is released from prison at the vote of the opposition-controlled parliament. By the 23rd the opposition leader and protest organizer Aresniy Yatsenyuk is made Prime Minister as other opposition leaders are placed in charge of the Ukrainian government.
As this is occurring protestors in Crimea, which is largely Russian-speaking, are rejecting the new government in Kyiv as illegitimate. The regional parliament in Crimea states that they will vote to decide if they will remain part of Ukraine and armed men seize airfields and government buildings in the Crimea. The brand new government in Kyiv states they will not allow the breakup of Ukraine.
The new government also beings pleading with Europe and the US for - billions of dollars in loans to prop up the Ukrainian economy.
The crimean regional parliament asks for help from Russia to aid it in its claims to autonomy. Russia agrees and sends troops too support the new Republic of Crimea.
...
We have been continually surprised at the political developments of the last few years where ostensibly Democratic governments in Europe and North America vocally and materially support the violent overthrow of various governments in the world. This may be most surprising in Ukraine.
Let us be very clear - what occurred in Ukraine is the violent overthrow of the lawfully-elected government by an armed mob led by the losers of the last election. This was not prompted by mass oppression, nor was it triggered by civil rights violations or the illegal grasp for power - the pretext for this armed insurrection was the government's refusal to sign a trade agreement that would have forced Ukraine to modify its internal laws to be advantageous to European nations without giving Ukraine the loans it needed to remain solvent.
There are already protests in large cities across Ukraine against this new, mob-seated, government by Ukrainians that reject its legitimacy - if more protests arise led by the new opposition what side shal Europe, the BBC, and similar groups take? Will the violent protestors still have the right to change the government via force?
The last five years have clearly demonstrated through the words and deeds of European and North American political leaders, pundits, and academics that none of them actually believe that Democracy works. What shall they replace it with?
Sep 5, 2013
A Royal Address for the week of September 1st, 2013
To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.
Syria is slightly different. Assad does not embrace the core concepts of Edan, but the forces that have been fighting to overthrow him are, again, no more palatable. The recent apparent use of chemical weapons has attracted increased foreign scrutiny of this terrible conflict, but no more clarity and certainly no greater moral standing on any side.
Before continuing, let us make clear a few points. Edan currently has no citizens within the borders of Syria unless they are currently travelling; Edan has no level of diplomatic exchange with Syria; Edan has no economic interests in or related to Syria or the Syrian government.
The Assad regime is the recognized legitimate government of Syria by international treaty, diplomatic relations, and UN membership. According to the Montevideo Convention (to whom the United States is a signatory but Syria is not) which in article 3 states that,
The United States being bound by this convention could be argued to not apply to Syria, which is not a signatory. However, the United States, France, and Syria are all members of the United Nations and signatories to the UN Charter, which has the legal power of a treaty. The UN Charter repeats the provisions of the Montevideo Convention in slightly different language including article 2, paragraph 4 which states,
There are some claims that [paraphrase] 'the use of chemical weapons allows [some nation or group] to directly intervene in the absence of UN Security Council approval'. We assume this is a reference the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which permits slightly more broad action of its signatories.
This is, bluntly, false. The CWC only permits assistance and cooperation between signatories, it does not allow various signatories to pursue unilateral international actions against other members who violate the treaty. Further, even if it did, it only permits actions by and between entities which are members of the CWC - and Syria is not a CWC signatory.
Let us be clear; we are not so naive as to think that 'international law' is more than a vague hope for some and a thin screen for realpolitik for others. At the same time, however, treaties are meant to be as binding as internal laws upon their signatories. This is certainly the conceit of the United States as it attempts to use treaties to force internal change upon other nations in its pursuit of American tax revenue. If the United States demands that other signatories cleave to the letter and spirit of a tax treaty, should they not be expected by other nations to do the same regarding the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, etc?
Certainly the United States is not alone. Great Britain was eager to likewise violate a variety of its treaties, as France remains.
Thus, before we even grapple with the uncertainty of who is at fault for the origin of Syria's internal strife, who performed the chemical weapons attacks (and there have been at least 4), or the moral standing of any of the parties involved we must understand that this is, in the end, Syria's war to fight.
As global tensions remain high we have been repeatedly asked for our position on the unrest within the Middle East. To repeat a phrase from an opinion issued during the revolt in Libya,
"We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they do not want"It brings us no joy to see our predictions proven correct in Libya, Egypt, and other, similar, nations. We are no champion of dictators, but the current chaos was too predictable to make the time, methods, and actors of change more palatable.
Syria is slightly different. Assad does not embrace the core concepts of Edan, but the forces that have been fighting to overthrow him are, again, no more palatable. The recent apparent use of chemical weapons has attracted increased foreign scrutiny of this terrible conflict, but no more clarity and certainly no greater moral standing on any side.
Before continuing, let us make clear a few points. Edan currently has no citizens within the borders of Syria unless they are currently travelling; Edan has no level of diplomatic exchange with Syria; Edan has no economic interests in or related to Syria or the Syrian government.
The Assad regime is the recognized legitimate government of Syria by international treaty, diplomatic relations, and UN membership. According to the Montevideo Convention (to whom the United States is a signatory but Syria is not) which in article 3 states that,
“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”and in article 8 states,
“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”Together these show that the United States is bound to treat the Syrian government's defense of its own integrity against either internal rebellion or outside subversion as legal and internal and to not interfere in this conflict unless the Syrian government requests it.
The United States being bound by this convention could be argued to not apply to Syria, which is not a signatory. However, the United States, France, and Syria are all members of the United Nations and signatories to the UN Charter, which has the legal power of a treaty. The UN Charter repeats the provisions of the Montevideo Convention in slightly different language including article 2, paragraph 4 which states,
"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”And in article 51 states,
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”Together, these clearly state that unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes such intervention no UN member can legally do the things being publicly debated by various members of the UN, including 'limited strikes' or 'regime change'.
There are some claims that [paraphrase] 'the use of chemical weapons allows [some nation or group] to directly intervene in the absence of UN Security Council approval'. We assume this is a reference the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which permits slightly more broad action of its signatories.
This is, bluntly, false. The CWC only permits assistance and cooperation between signatories, it does not allow various signatories to pursue unilateral international actions against other members who violate the treaty. Further, even if it did, it only permits actions by and between entities which are members of the CWC - and Syria is not a CWC signatory.
Let us be clear; we are not so naive as to think that 'international law' is more than a vague hope for some and a thin screen for realpolitik for others. At the same time, however, treaties are meant to be as binding as internal laws upon their signatories. This is certainly the conceit of the United States as it attempts to use treaties to force internal change upon other nations in its pursuit of American tax revenue. If the United States demands that other signatories cleave to the letter and spirit of a tax treaty, should they not be expected by other nations to do the same regarding the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, etc?
Certainly the United States is not alone. Great Britain was eager to likewise violate a variety of its treaties, as France remains.
Thus, before we even grapple with the uncertainty of who is at fault for the origin of Syria's internal strife, who performed the chemical weapons attacks (and there have been at least 4), or the moral standing of any of the parties involved we must understand that this is, in the end, Syria's war to fight.
Jul 8, 2013
The Declaration of Independence - A Failed Justification for Perfidy, Treason, and Terrorism
America just celebrated its 4th of July this past week, a holiday which, I must admit, is fun to watch. It does fill me with sadness to know how little Americans know of their own holiday and the origins of their own country. Today, after a pause to avoid direct offense of Americans too close to their national holiday, I wish to examine their Declaration of Independence and the history around it.
The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
It fails.
The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason. His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
And then the whining begins.
Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.
The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
It fails.
The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason. His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
And then the whining begins.
Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.
May 13, 2011
Nation-States, the UN, and the Illicit War in Libya
We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they don't want.
But our greatest sadness is reserved for what is happening in Libya, which shows the inherent contradictions of Western democracies as well as the decline of their military power.
Others have spent a great deal of energy discussing the military weaknesses of the European powers exposed by this debacle, so we will focus on the seemingly-ignored contradictions blatantly displayed by the Western democracies.
The only true legal definition of a nation-state is from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933. This convention defines a nation-state as follows;
“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”
The Convention goes on to explain in Article 3 that;
“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”
In other words, a nation-state can defend itself from invasion ('independence') and rebellion ('integrity') as well as define its own government, etc.
Article 8 is very straightforward, although often ignored;
“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”
So the Montevideo Convention is very clear; a nation-state has the right to suppress rebellion and other nation-states are forbidden to invade one another or to aid the internal rebellion of another state.
Now, the Montevideo Convention is largely about the Western Hemisphere, so it might not apply to Europe... except that the UN Charter repeats the key points of the Montevideo Convention and add to them. For example, Article 2, paragraph 4 states;
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Article 51 goes on to say;
“"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”
And last, the Nuremberg Trials established the notion of a 'Crime against Peace', or 'the unlawful initiation of force to permanently deprive a nation-state of territory, political independence, and/or sovereignty'. This concept is repeated in the UN Charter in various places, as well as other treaties.
Or, in brief, any nation has the right to defend itself from both external invasions and internal rebellions. Also, no nation that is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention or the UN Charter can use force against another member without a Security Council resolution. Of course, a Security Council resolution cannot deny a member the right to defend itself against invasion or rebellion (as per the charter).
And yet a handful of members of the UN are attacking Libya, a fellow UN member, in blatant violation of the UN Charter. While the Security Council authorized the use of military force against Libya under the pretext of 'protecting the human rights of Libyans' the actions themselves are in direct support of an armed rebellion aimed at overthrowing the Libyan government, including direct attempts to kills the current head of the Libyan government. Of special interest (and irony) is the fact that Libya was chair of the UN Human Rights Cimmission from 2003 until 2006 and was re-selected to be on the Commission less than a year before some UN members began bombing them.
Edan is no friend to the current government of Libya and does not support them directly or indirectly. Indeed, in the opinion of HRM Richard the fact that Libya is a member of the UN is an indictment of the UN itself. But the fact remains: Libya is a member of the UN and thus is entitled to the equal protection of the law. Indeed, in a modern, secular state that eschews a monarch, a faith, or any overt moral code, the only source of justice can be the laws as they are written. When a secular democracy ignores its own laws and treaties to do what expedient it is abandoning its only ethical compass, an act that is even more dangerous when it is popular with the voters because it reinforces that in a democracy you can do whatever you like so long as enough voters like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)