現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 議論９ > 727.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 議論９ > 727.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
(回答先: Illégale agression (le Monde Diplomatique,2003年4月号） 投稿者 Sara 日時 2003 年 4 月 06 日 22:20:57)
欧米の国際法の専門家たちが多数署名しております。
イラク侵略戦争の違法性の法的論拠を知る上で大変参考になります。
http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/statement_iraq.html
An appeal by international jurists concerning the use of force against Iraq
This appeal has been sent to national and international instances.
To refer to the letter sent to the permanent members of United Nations Security Council, click here.
To refer to the letter sent to the European institutions, click here.
To refer to the letter sent to the Belgian political authorities, click here.
This appeal has been published in different medias. To refer to them, click here.
International jurists whishing to sign this appeal should send a mail to appelcdi@ulb.ac.be, mentioning their first name, their name, their title or function as well as the institutions for which they work.
Over the last few months, the United States has made widely known its intention to launch a generalised war against Iraq. Moreover, in collaboration with the United Kingdom, it has multiplied the aerial bombardment of certain zones within Iraqi territory, which had been going on regularly since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.
The reasons advanced to justify this use of force are diverse: to overthrow the dictatorial and bloodstained regime of Sadam Hussein, to combat international terrorism, with whom Iraq supposedly maintains certain links, and to pre-empt an eventual attack emanating from the regime that threatens the vital interests of the United States, and more broadly, the "international community". The last point is supported by the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological or biological) or is seeking to obtain such arms.
The deployment of armed forces by the United States and the United Kingdom along the borders of Iraq, as well as the recrudescence of their aerial attack against certain parts of its territory, suggest that the latter is threatened with an all-out war.
Over the last few months, the majority of the media has contented itself with reporting the above facts with serenity accompanied, most often, by technical commentaries on the forces present, the suitable meteorological conditions, the plans for the invasion, the arms and other means utilized, the duration of the operation, the reactions of the Iraqi army, etc. There is also some interest in the economic aspects of the problem: What would be the effects of an eventual war on the economy ? Are they beneficial or detrimental - in particular for the Western world - when it comes to the price of raw materials, stock markets, and economic growth ? At times, the discussion is enamelled with sprinkles of some ethical and humanitarian considerations. By contrast, the law, in particular, international law, is almost totally absent from the debate.
The undersigned jurists regret, on the one hand, this banalisation of war and, on the other, the indifference regarding the legal dimension, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of international relations.
On this last point, the signatories of this declaration recall that there exists no conception of a "new world order" that allows resort to a unilateral use of force by some states to supposedly guarantee the respect of international law. One of the great achievements of the twentieth century is precisely the prohibition of war, in particular through the United Nations Charter in which the following fundamental principles are elaborated:
- The threat or use of force is prohibited and states are required to settle their disputes peacefully;
- A war of aggression constitutes a crime against peace;
- Self defence presupposes the existence of a prior armed attack; consequently, "preventive self defence", is not admissible under international law;
- The Security Council is entrusted with the principal responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.
According to these principles, there is no rule of international law that authorises one or any number of states to unilaterally use force in order to change a foreign government or regime, however detestable it may be, or because it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Only the Security Council can, depending on the particular circumstances, decide that such a situation constitutes a threat against peace. The Security Council has very rarely held that the existence of a dictatorial regime constitutes a threat to peace and never qualified as such the development or possession of weapons of mass destruction. Even assuming that the Security Council qualifies such a situation as a threat against peace, this does not mean that resort to force is the only adequate response.
In light of the above principles, the signatories recall that:
1) The Iraqi government must respect the decisions of the Security Council as well as all its international obligations relating to fundamental human rights and freedoms, and disarmament.
2) If Iraq does not fulfil its obligations, the states in conflict -among which are the United States and United Kingdom - must work for a peaceful settlement of their dispute, in particular, using the multilateral mechanisms available under the aegis of the Security Council.
3) The ongoing unilateral bombardments by the United States and the United Kingdom against certain targets within Iraqi territory constitute a use of force in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
4) The recent conducts of these two states, which are ostensibly preparing for a massive attack, more generally constitute a threat of use of force. Such a threat is equally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the Charter.
5) The unilateral launching of a general war against Iraq based on the justifications or pretexts cited earlier will constitute a breach of peace and crime of aggression under international law. These crimes entail the responsibility of not only the concerned states, but also of the individuals who, voluntarily and knowingly, participate in its perpetration.
6) All forms of participation in such a war on the part of the United States, including all forms of assistance to the United States by third states or a regional organization, also constitutes a violation of the prohibition of the use of force.
7) The position of member states of the Security Council must be guided by the need to ensure the control of Iraqi armaments through peaceful means. To this end, it is appropriate to resort to the inspection regime that is established by Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) rather than the use of force.
The signatories of this statement equally emphasise that any war - irrespective of the technical precision of the weapons used - is very likely to inflict loss and damage to civilian population, which will be disproportionate to the objectives pursued, hence, violating the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Rather than admitting that international law is nothing but "the law of the most powerful", the signatories of this declaration call upon political leaders to base their decisions on the principles of international law cited earlier. The signatories also remind all members of the Security Council that - in spite of the pressure that they may be subjected to by the United States -the enforcement power that the Security Council possesses in the exercise of its responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security must be used in accordance with international law, in particular, the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
To refer to the list of signatories, click here.
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。