TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Double Standard. . .
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

we need an ally in the area to do our dirty work

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 international law only applies to countries that voluntarily join the UN or any other organization, such as the WTO. So in a sense, international law is just as voluntary.

Well, yes, but this gets into the distinction of what makes a state - statehood hinges upon international recognition, which can only be officially achieved by signing onto the UN Charter. So in essence, all states are members of the UN, and are therefore subject to international law.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well, yes, but this gets into the distinction of what makes a state - statehood hinges upon international recognition, which can only be officially achieved by signing onto the UN Charter. So in essence, all states are members of the UN, and are therefore subject to international law.

while you are correct that statehood normally depends on international recognition (at least in post-WW2 days), you are not correct that it takes signing the UN charter to become a nation.

First, the UN charter itself states: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." This means that the territory must first be a state before it can enter the UN.

Second, no one will dispute that the vatican is a nation, but the vatican is not a member of the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 but the vatican is not a member of the UN.

Sure it is - but it is listed under the name Holy See.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sure it is - but it is listed under the name Holy See.

no it isn't

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/org1469.doc.htm

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 while you are correct that statehood normally depends on international recognition (at least in post-WW2 days), you are not correct that it takes signing the UN charter to become a nation. First, the UN charter itself states: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." This means that the territory must first be a state before it can enter the UN.

Hmmm... it seems that the truth may be somewhat more complicated than either of our assumptions.

Check out pages 26-28 from "The Concept of Statehood in International Law," a behemoth of a book by James Crawford:

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-826002-4.pdf

Declaratory (statehood based on fulfilling certain empirical criteria) and constitutive (statehood based on recognition) seem to both play a role in the practical definition of statehood, though international law never seems to be as clear as it should.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 no it isn't http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/org1469.doc.htm

Hmmm... I'm not sure what's going on there, because here's the website to their permanent mission to the UN:

http://www.holyseemission.org/

And a relevant UN Resolution:

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-58-314.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hmmm... it seems that the truth may be somewhat more complicated than either of our assumptions. Check out pages 26-28 from "The Concept of Statehood in International Law," a behemoth of a book by James Crawford: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-826002-4.pdf Declaratory (statehood based on fulfilling certain empirical criteria) and constitutive (statehood based on recognition) seem to both play a role in the practical definition of statehood, though international law never seems to be as clear as it should.

interesting article from what i've read. His conclusion runs counter to your previous statement that recognition is what forms a state. Specifically the conclusion states, "...the status of an entity as a state is, in principle, independent of recognition..." Although it seems clear that he is suggesting that a state may exist without being recognized, i'm sure he weakens that conclusion somewhere in the article.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Hmmm... I'm not sure what's going on there, because here's the website to their permanent mission to the UN: http://www.holyseemission.org/ And a relevant UN Resolution: http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-58-314.pdf

Notice annex 10: the vatican does not have the right to vote. The vatican is an observer because it is, by virtue of it being the roman catholic state, a state that is highly interested in assisting people of the world (a UN mandate). However, the vatican specifically does not want to be subject to international law. That is why it is not a member state.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 interesting article from what i've read. His conclusion runs counter to your previous statement that recognition is what forms a state. Specifically the conclusion states, "...the status of an entity as a state is, in principle, independent of recognition..." Although it seems clear that he is suggesting that a state may exist without being recognized, i'm sure he weakens that conclusion somewhere in the article.

Yes, he later admits that there is no standardized bar by which to judge statehood, so international law inevitably falls back on recognition as the ultimate determination of statehood.

So basically, it SHOULD be independent of recognition, but in reality it is not.

Also, I dug up this on the Holy See mission - they are an observer mission only, but it appears to be by choice.

quote:

According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Holy See Permanent Observer, "We have no vote because this is our choice." He added that the Holy See considers that its current status "is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it."

The only threads that can generate that many pages in such a short time are Tiesto discussions.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo :HAHA: again with the nearsightedness. give this about 8 more years and another 10 UN resolutions if you want to draw LEGITIMATE parallells between Iran and Iraq, Krypton. until then at least respect the ******* process.

I'm only "nearsighted" because I don't agree with your imperialist worldview... Heh, nearsighted, what a load of dog doo doo...

Again, the UN approval did not mean anything once it was known they would not approve the invasion. But now, the UN is all important. More hypocrisy...

quote:

thats a fallacy. Iran doesn't want nukes because they're jealous of Israel. thats absurd. you don't invest as much time and money and clandestined effort in something like obtaining and weaponizing nuclear weapons for something as simple as spite. you don't subject your country to the penalties that Iran has had to endure over 5 years for something as petty an emotion as jealousy or gamesmanship. ya just don't. you want nuclear weapons for something much more.

Tell me, what fallacy did I use oh student of logic?

Ever heard of an Arms Race? When your enemy has a superior weapon to you, you are strategically obligated to match that technology with a counter-weapon. What you, the US and Israel want, is to keep Israel as the sole nuclear monopoly of the Middle East.

And this notion that, "The Iranians will actually use nuclear weapons against Israel because they are crazy suicidal maniacs," is complete BS. Mutually-assured destruction doctrine should tell you something... That if Iran was to ever launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel, it would mean the end of Iran. Do you actually think any sophisticated country would ever consider their own national suicide by nuking another nuclear power. Iran KNOWS Israel has first AND second strike capability far more powerful than anything Iran could muster.

I find it funny how you try to label me a fear-monger, yet, here you are assuming Iran would start World War III by nuking Israel. Hardly any strategic analysis on your part is really a shame...It's all about US/Israeli interests, what's best for them. And you people wonder why there is terrorism in the Middle East... Shame...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In other words, he argues that peace is a result of structural similarities that preclude violent conflict, and that conflict between democracies is resolved peacefully due to the structural realities of liberal democracies - not that policy-makers say "hey, that's a democracy, we should agree with everything they do."

I'm not saying the US policy makers are saying, "Hey Israel is democracy, and Iran is not. Let's go after Iran."

I'm am making the assertion that because the West identifies more with Israel than Iran, there is an inherent bias against Iran. The proof for this would be the continuing disregard for Israel WMD program. What it says to me is, "As long you're a liberal democracy, or enemy of my enemy (Saddam's WMD program against Iran), WMD programs are fine."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.