| Submit your comments on this article |
| Axis of Evil |
| Unilateral action in Iraq ’would violate international law’ |
| 2003-01-29 |
| Australia would unquestionably be breaching international law if it followed the United States into a war in Iraq without United Nations backing, and could be sued in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a leading constitutional expert has warned. Professor George Williams, of the University of NSW, said yesterday it was "very concerning" that there had been so little debate on the legality of Australia's potential involvement in Iraq without the sanction of the UN Security Council. He said the position under international law was clear. "If you ask is Australia justified as a matter of law in joining unilateral action in Iraq, the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. "It's no because there has not been a Security Council resolution that could justify such a conflict, and clearly self-defence of Australia is not at stake." Unlike the US, which has never submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Australia could potentially be sued by Iraq or "some other country that's been affected", he said. "And that could be a messy, long-running battle ..." However, such a scenario was unlikely because of the difficulties in bringing a case to the ICJ and the possibility that Iraq might not, after any US-led war, want to take such a matter to the world court. Yes, there is that one little point. Those dammed Iraqi's will most likely be too busy stringing up Sammy's crowd to notice that the US and Australia broke international law by setting them free. Don't they see the big picture? |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #9 International law? The sharia says we kufr aggress against the munimen (believers). Gotta do what the sharia says. Allah knows best. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-01-29 21:09:15 |
| #8 "unilateral" is defined in French as "Without the approval of France." |
| Posted by: Doug 2003-01-29 21:05:42 |
| #7 You have to consider the source. The Sydney Morning Herald is like the New York Times of Australia. "World Ends...Women, Minorities Hardest Hit". Get the picture? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-01-29 16:21:44 |
| #6 Yes,launching a war is illegal but if you get UK,France,Russia and China,those paragons of morality, to agree then it's A-O-K.I guess you need to be a professor to understand that. |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-01-29 15:59:58 |
| #5 These "Uni's" that are complaining are really Euni's" which is a compound pun. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-01-29 14:12:20 |
| #4 Ooooooh! SUED in the ICJ! What're they gonna do, impound Queensland? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-01-29 13:40:35 |
| #3 It's "uni" if "uni" stands for U.N. independent! |
| Posted by: Anonymous-TN 2003-01-29 13:38:12 |
| #2 "If you ask is Australia justified as a matter of law in joining unilateral action in Iraq, the answer is clearly and unequivocally no." Why do these airheads keep bringing up this crap? If the U.S. were poised to go into Iraq alone, and Australia signed on as a partner in military action before things got underway, such a war would no longer be a "UNILATERAL" action. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-01-29 13:35:39 |
| #1 Funny how "unilateral action' is against international law, but a dictator killing thousands of his own countryman, and threating the peace of the world is A-OK. Until the UN starts requiring some form of standards to its membership, its waste of time in my opinion. oh, and buy the way, is it 'unilateral' if we have the following ready to go into action: Australia UK Spain Italy Norway Kuwait Oman Bahrain Turkey Israel Japan S. Korea Kazakstan Georgia Tajikistan pakistan It doesnt look very "uni" to me! |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2003-01-29 12:43:58 |