A case could be made that Iran has been at war with Israel for the last couple of decades. Iran has utilised various proxies across the Middle East to attack Israel and has constantly called for "Death to Israel". Perhaps the 'war' didn't start a few days ago but twenty years ago and has now just entered a different phase. That doesn't make it legal but Iseal could argue"self defence"
Iran started war with the US in 1979 by holding 52 embassy menbers prisoners or as some say, hostages. Under Regan they blew up a Marine barracks in Lebanon. Through out the Afgan war, Iran supported by providing IEDs. As such, Iran has bee at war for 46 years. Iranians are Trump dancing in the streets to “YMCA”. Who is right?
David concludes “Within her terms of reference Helen Clark is correct. The use of force against Iran is unlawful using a strict interpretation of the UN Charter. But the issue is more complex than that.” It certainly is.
International law is not like law in the domestic law sense where it is, especially in a democracy and however imperfect, a reflection of the will of the people (except where unelected judges assume authoritarian powers), with established institutions for adjudication and enforcement. International law is more like a weapon to be used to advance other agendas. As I know from personal experience going back to the Vietnam War, the Labour Party is knee-jerk anti-American and almost as consistently a friend of left-wing dictators (not that Labour Party politicians have that on their own). Invocations of international law by Clark and Goff need to be seen in that light.
Regarding the law on war ably summarised by David, one wonders how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affects the position. It commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and the right to due process and a fair trial. Iran ratified it in 1975, but blatantly and consistently violates the obligations it assumed. Where the interests of America and Israel in protecting their own citizens coincide with potential assistance to the citizens of Iran who are victims of tyranny in breach of the ICCPR, that may justify the use of force. It certainly means that Helen Clark’s terms of reference omit a vital component.
They are calling for “ Death to America”. That’s good enough to kickstart but their torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iranians didn’t even stop a single UN rep like Helen Clark from finishing her lattes…….
Thanks for an informative piece. Yes, nuanced, but also not. The US went after Bin Laden and nobody seemed to mind. The Ayatollah & the entire IRGC are (were…) terrorists, so surely justifiable by that. Israel is also most certainly acting in ‘self-defence’ given how long Iranian proxies have been attacking them. Clark seems happy defending China yet TDS reigns supreme in her lefty brain. She should just piss off, who needs to hear her opinion? Taking out the evil & oppressive Iranian hierarchy is a Samaritan act, it just took some gumption to get it done. Long overdue and praised by most Iranians.
Such niceties iro murderous Mullahs in Iran and from the incompetence of the UN is just laughable. The UN is not an democratically elected body. It could never be . And never will be . It’s a travel perk for soft lefties.
Your paragraph near the end, about the facts Helen Clark is ignoring is where I land on this. And I'd add that the Iranian regime has been carrying out cruel, dehumanising and violent human rights abuses against its own people ever since they came to power. I'm not sorry this evil regime is being crushed.
A 'law' that does not have an accompanying capacity to enforce it, by violence if necessary, is not worthy of the label. Unlike domestic, nation-based laws, it is reasonably clear that this thing called 'International Law' is a fiction, a mythical beast, and is there mainly to support the careers of those who function in its labyrinths. China, Russia, and yes, the USA, have provided evidence aplenty of its toothless whining's.
It seems to me that the rules based order isn't just deteriorating or collapsing - it's been gone for a long time, with the greater powers implementing a "might is right" approach and to hell with everyone else.
I would suggest that Luxon's performance yesterday was so poor for the simple reason that the talking points he was asked to enunciate are so patently false, flawed, perfidious humbuggery. Same for W. Peters. They first say that 'we haven't seen the intel,' 'it's complicated,' 'only qualified legal experts could say if the US/Israeli actions are illegal or not'; but then go on to give reasons in favour of the US/Israel campaign - based on all the suspect propaganda that has been promulgated against Iran since at least as long as Netanyahu has been in power.... (and constituting 'intel' that would be just about as valuable as the so-called 'Dossier' of 2003, by which we were sold the idea that Iraq had nucs.... - subsequently proved to have been false)....... But hang on a minute, in 2022 they (NZ government and all MPs) had no problem in very quickly asserting that Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine was 'illegal' and 'unjustified aggression,' without having to defer to any legal experts....!! There was not even any fair-minded or serious consideration given to Russia's own stated motivations: the responsibility to protect the people of Luhansk and Donetsk - both of which had petitioned Russia for assistance, and both of which were under renewed attack at the time (since 2014), and the averting of an impending action against Russia by Ukrainian forces, as well as the question of NATO expansion, which Russia has been legitimately protesting for around 20 years..... And let's also pay some attention to Merkel's and Hollande's subsequent admissions that the Minsk Accords were not at all sincerely entered into from their side - they were a mere device to give time to build up the Ukrainian forces to be able to damage Russia..... Consequently, Clark rightfully had the opportunity to call out Luxon's response as dithering duplicitous spinelessness...
As good a description of this bumbling boob as I have seen. Why National didn't ditch him a year ago I don't know; if National fails in its bid to lead another coalition government after this year's election then he should be recognised as the prime culprit.
War has been with us for about five and a half thousand years that we know of. It seems to have started in earnest with the smelting of bronze. When copper is smelted, it gives off poisonous vapours, inducing changes in the ionic blood balance, and various resultant mental illnesses.
Today, we have an accelerating tech sector, largely dedicated to wholesale destruction. It has inertia and momentum. Those weapons factories need turnover. They need a constant or growing quotient of conflict. This is never spoken about. Fingers are pointed at nations and leaders. The instigators of war are the banks and industrialists. They are the real winners.
The other thing required by the industrial destruction sector is propaganda. This demeans life, for everyone, even the warmongers and their grandchildren. Let's be nice to the warmongers' grandchildren. They haven't done anything wrong. Let's use our fingers to point at the real culprits, (qui bono) and not get sucked in by the hologram on the smokescreen.
A case could be made that Iran has been at war with Israel for the last couple of decades. Iran has utilised various proxies across the Middle East to attack Israel and has constantly called for "Death to Israel". Perhaps the 'war' didn't start a few days ago but twenty years ago and has now just entered a different phase. That doesn't make it legal but Iseal could argue"self defence"
Iran started war with the US in 1979 by holding 52 embassy menbers prisoners or as some say, hostages. Under Regan they blew up a Marine barracks in Lebanon. Through out the Afgan war, Iran supported by providing IEDs. As such, Iran has bee at war for 46 years. Iranians are Trump dancing in the streets to “YMCA”. Who is right?
David concludes “Within her terms of reference Helen Clark is correct. The use of force against Iran is unlawful using a strict interpretation of the UN Charter. But the issue is more complex than that.” It certainly is.
International law is not like law in the domestic law sense where it is, especially in a democracy and however imperfect, a reflection of the will of the people (except where unelected judges assume authoritarian powers), with established institutions for adjudication and enforcement. International law is more like a weapon to be used to advance other agendas. As I know from personal experience going back to the Vietnam War, the Labour Party is knee-jerk anti-American and almost as consistently a friend of left-wing dictators (not that Labour Party politicians have that on their own). Invocations of international law by Clark and Goff need to be seen in that light.
Regarding the law on war ably summarised by David, one wonders how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affects the position. It commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and the right to due process and a fair trial. Iran ratified it in 1975, but blatantly and consistently violates the obligations it assumed. Where the interests of America and Israel in protecting their own citizens coincide with potential assistance to the citizens of Iran who are victims of tyranny in breach of the ICCPR, that may justify the use of force. It certainly means that Helen Clark’s terms of reference omit a vital component.
Bravo...excellent point...mass murder of one's citizens is justified by the UN, yet putting a stop to it is illegal? Go figure.
They are calling for “ Death to America”. That’s good enough to kickstart but their torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iranians didn’t even stop a single UN rep like Helen Clark from finishing her lattes…….
Thanks for an informative piece. Yes, nuanced, but also not. The US went after Bin Laden and nobody seemed to mind. The Ayatollah & the entire IRGC are (were…) terrorists, so surely justifiable by that. Israel is also most certainly acting in ‘self-defence’ given how long Iranian proxies have been attacking them. Clark seems happy defending China yet TDS reigns supreme in her lefty brain. She should just piss off, who needs to hear her opinion? Taking out the evil & oppressive Iranian hierarchy is a Samaritan act, it just took some gumption to get it done. Long overdue and praised by most Iranians.
Such niceties iro murderous Mullahs in Iran and from the incompetence of the UN is just laughable. The UN is not an democratically elected body. It could never be . And never will be . It’s a travel perk for soft lefties.
I think China's invasion/annexation of Tibet around 1950-51 would be another example of an unlawful act without a UN Resolution validating the attack.
Your paragraph near the end, about the facts Helen Clark is ignoring is where I land on this. And I'd add that the Iranian regime has been carrying out cruel, dehumanising and violent human rights abuses against its own people ever since they came to power. I'm not sorry this evil regime is being crushed.
A 'law' that does not have an accompanying capacity to enforce it, by violence if necessary, is not worthy of the label. Unlike domestic, nation-based laws, it is reasonably clear that this thing called 'International Law' is a fiction, a mythical beast, and is there mainly to support the careers of those who function in its labyrinths. China, Russia, and yes, the USA, have provided evidence aplenty of its toothless whining's.
It seems to me that the rules based order isn't just deteriorating or collapsing - it's been gone for a long time, with the greater powers implementing a "might is right" approach and to hell with everyone else.
I would suggest that Luxon's performance yesterday was so poor for the simple reason that the talking points he was asked to enunciate are so patently false, flawed, perfidious humbuggery. Same for W. Peters. They first say that 'we haven't seen the intel,' 'it's complicated,' 'only qualified legal experts could say if the US/Israeli actions are illegal or not'; but then go on to give reasons in favour of the US/Israel campaign - based on all the suspect propaganda that has been promulgated against Iran since at least as long as Netanyahu has been in power.... (and constituting 'intel' that would be just about as valuable as the so-called 'Dossier' of 2003, by which we were sold the idea that Iraq had nucs.... - subsequently proved to have been false)....... But hang on a minute, in 2022 they (NZ government and all MPs) had no problem in very quickly asserting that Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine was 'illegal' and 'unjustified aggression,' without having to defer to any legal experts....!! There was not even any fair-minded or serious consideration given to Russia's own stated motivations: the responsibility to protect the people of Luhansk and Donetsk - both of which had petitioned Russia for assistance, and both of which were under renewed attack at the time (since 2014), and the averting of an impending action against Russia by Ukrainian forces, as well as the question of NATO expansion, which Russia has been legitimately protesting for around 20 years..... And let's also pay some attention to Merkel's and Hollande's subsequent admissions that the Minsk Accords were not at all sincerely entered into from their side - they were a mere device to give time to build up the Ukrainian forces to be able to damage Russia..... Consequently, Clark rightfully had the opportunity to call out Luxon's response as dithering duplicitous spinelessness...
'.......dithering duplicitous spinelessness...'
As good a description of this bumbling boob as I have seen. Why National didn't ditch him a year ago I don't know; if National fails in its bid to lead another coalition government after this year's election then he should be recognised as the prime culprit.
War has been with us for about five and a half thousand years that we know of. It seems to have started in earnest with the smelting of bronze. When copper is smelted, it gives off poisonous vapours, inducing changes in the ionic blood balance, and various resultant mental illnesses.
Today, we have an accelerating tech sector, largely dedicated to wholesale destruction. It has inertia and momentum. Those weapons factories need turnover. They need a constant or growing quotient of conflict. This is never spoken about. Fingers are pointed at nations and leaders. The instigators of war are the banks and industrialists. They are the real winners.
The other thing required by the industrial destruction sector is propaganda. This demeans life, for everyone, even the warmongers and their grandchildren. Let's be nice to the warmongers' grandchildren. They haven't done anything wrong. Let's use our fingers to point at the real culprits, (qui bono) and not get sucked in by the hologram on the smokescreen.