Regime Change

Rebelius · 1st November 2004, 12:31 AM

why is going to iraq with the objective of regime change illegal?

if they can prove that saddam killed hundreds/thousands of his own people and rigging elections and all that, surely that would justify it?

browneyedboy00 · 1st November 2004, 12:50 AM

If youre meaning would it have been a decent reason to invade Iraq in the first place? Then I guess, but only if they went through the proper channels of international politics and had all the other countries agree they should and then help.

Rebelius · 1st November 2004, 01:00 AM

aye, but all this talk of it actually being illegal to go to war for regime change. As in what Charlie Kennedy said to blair.

all i want to know is "Why is it illegal?" and surely if they "went through the proper channels" the international law would still be there?

RealR · 1st November 2004, 01:19 AM

I don't think they did. I'm sure it was an illegal war as it didn't have full UN backing or summut.

graham enzk · 1st November 2004, 10:01 AM

how do you make a war legal or illegal? is there something like the offside rule, sorry but you started shooting when your advance infantry was over the border past the last defenders, that makes your war illegal.
if a country decides to invade another one do they have to put in an advance application, some sort of planning permission? does the intended invasion notice then have to be put up in little posters on every lamppost in the area to be invaded giving the general populace the chance to raise objections with the planning authority?
if it is decided that a war is illegal do you think the country that instigated it is going to give a shit? they just started a war for crap's sake!

grigorip · 1st November 2004, 06:46 PM

it is illegal to change a government in a country without UN backing...

also regieme change starts at home

browneyedboy00 · 1st November 2004, 10:34 PM

If they wanted to invade Iraq for regeme change then they would need full UN permission and co-operation (so that the war was monitored).

This is all just theory though, since the USA is too powerful for anyone to argue with them.

Rosco the magnificent · 1st November 2004, 10:52 PM

Tbh, it's a very hard war to justify legally, and i'm surprised Tony Blair, a lawyer himself, said it could be justified.

UN Charter-

Article 2(4)- All members shall refrain...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE of any state.....

Also, G.A. Resolution 2131 (XX)-

Section 1- No state has the right to intervene...for any reason whatsoever....in the internal and external affairs of any state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of political interference or attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemed.

It can't be justified through the right to self-defence. In the Caroline Case, that was defined as something that was '[necessary], instant, over-whelming, leaving choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'.

As far as i'm aware, there's no such thing as justifying a pre-emptive attack.

1st November 2004, 12:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
Rebelius Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 7,220	Regime Change why is going to iraq with the objective of regime change illegal? if they can prove that saddam killed hundreds/thousands of his own people and rigging elections and all that, surely that would justify it?

1st November 2004, 10:01 AM	#5 (permalink)
graham enzk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: back in the day Posts: 2,778 Band: condition21, ultramegaholocausticwhi rlwindzombiedeathsquad , utter fucking hate, distorted noise, tin pot hippies, spiteful	how do you make a war legal or illegal? is there something like the offside rule, sorry but you started shooting when your advance infantry was over the border past the last defenders, that makes your war illegal. if a country decides to invade another one do they have to put in an advance application, some sort of planning permission? does the intended invasion notice then have to be put up in little posters on every lamppost in the area to be invaded giving the general populace the chance to raise objections with the planning authority? if it is decided that a war is illegal do you think the country that instigated it is going to give a shit? they just started a war for crap's sake! Last edited by smallbob : 1st November 2004 at 07:14 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

1st November 2004, 12:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
browneyedboy00 Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Kettle, Fife Posts: 872	If youre meaning would it have been a decent reason to invade Iraq in the first place? Then I guess, but only if they went through the proper channels of international politics and had all the other countries agree they should and then help.

1st November 2004, 01:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rebelius Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 7,220	aye, but all this talk of it actually being illegal to go to war for regime change. As in what Charlie Kennedy said to blair. all i want to know is "Why is it illegal?" and surely if they "went through the proper channels" the international law would still be there?

1st November 2004, 01:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
RealR Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Dundee Posts: 4,140 Band: They are make believe	I don't think they did. I'm sure it was an illegal war as it didn't have full UN backing or summut.

1st November 2004, 06:46 PM	#6 (permalink)
grigorip kipper family Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: cuparfife,but,tis-notmyfavoriteplacetobe.hm Posts: 2,154	it is illegal to change a government in a country without UN backing... also regieme change starts at home

1st November 2004, 10:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
browneyedboy00 Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Kettle, Fife Posts: 872	If they wanted to invade Iraq for regeme change then they would need full UN permission and co-operation (so that the war was monitored). This is all just theory though, since the USA is too powerful for anyone to argue with them.

1st November 2004, 10:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
Rosco the magnificent ping-pong Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lenzieshire (for a little while) Posts: 4,143 Band: My Own Religion	Tbh, it's a very hard war to justify legally, and i'm surprised Tony Blair, a lawyer himself, said it could be justified. UN Charter- Article 2(4)- All members shall refrain...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE of any state..... Also, G.A. Resolution 2131 (XX)- Section 1- No state has the right to intervene...for any reason whatsoever....in the internal and external affairs of any state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of political interference or attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemed. It can't be justified through the right to self-defence. In the Caroline Case, that was defined as something that was '[necessary], instant, over-whelming, leaving choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. As far as i'm aware, there's no such thing as justifying a pre-emptive attack.