Amerika shkel konventat ndërkombëtare të luftës

[Hyllien]

Vendosa te hap kete teme dhe te flasim me fakte per cfar po ndodh sot ne bote dhe deri ku mund te justifikohen aksionet e nje shteti ndaj nje shteti tjeter. Shoh ne forum qe flitet shume per "rregulla loje(lufte)" ne menyre hakmarrese do thoja. Do ishte mire ti hidhnim nje sy se si shkelen ligjet dit per dit sot nga SHBA dhe se deri ku mund te justifikohen keto(nqs mund te justifikohen).


Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, II), July 29, 1899

CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
The Hague, July 29, 1899

[Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1902]
[excerpts]

ARTICLE XXII

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

ARTICLE XXIII

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:
a. To employ poison or poisoned arms;
b. To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
c. To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
d. To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

f. ...

ARTICLE XXV

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXVI

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

ARTICLE XXVII

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

================================================== =====
Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, The Hague, February 1923

RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE
The Hague, February 1923

[Although drafted as the basis for an international treaty, the enactment of which was supported by the United States, these rules were never formally adopted]

[excerpts]

ARTICLE XXII

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXIII

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of enforcing compliance with requisitions in kind or payment of contributions in money is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXIV

(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.

(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population.

(5) A belligerent state is liable to pay compensation for injuries to person or to property caused by violation by any of its officers or forces of the provisions of this article.

ARTICLE XXV

In bombardment by aircraft, all necessary steps must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospital ships, hospitals and other places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided such buildings, objects, or places are not at the time used for military purposes. Such buildings, objects, and places must by day be indicated by marks visible to aircraft. The use of marks to indicate other buildings, objects, or places than those specified above is to be deemed an act of perfidy. The marks used as aforesaid shall be in the case of buildings protected under the Geneva Convention the red cross on a white background, and in the case of other protected buildings a large rectangular panel divided diagonally into two pointed triangular portions, one black and the other white.

A belligerent who desires to secure by night the protection for the hospitals and other privileged buildings above mentioned must take the necessary measures to render the special signs referred to sufficiently visible.
================================================== =====


Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.
The Assembly,

Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;

Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;

Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;

Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;
II. Also takes the opportunity to reaffirm that the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law, as recalled more particularly in the resolution of the General Commission of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of July 23rd 1932, and the resolution of the Council of May 14th, 1938.
================================================== =====

Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945

CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
AUGUST 8, 1945

[Signatories: USA, USSR, Britain, France]
[excerpts]

ARTICLE VI

[excerpt]

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

ARTICLE VII

The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of States or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

ARTICLE VIII

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

================================================== =====

Geneva Convention IV, August 12, 1949

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR
Geneva, August 12, 1949
[excerpts]

PART II. GENERAL PROTECTION OF POPULATIONS AGAINST CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF WAR

ARTICLE XIII

The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war...

ARTICLE XVI

The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect...

ARTICLE XVIII

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict...
================================================== =====

Resolution on Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, November 24, 1961

RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS
United Nations, November 24, 1961
General Assembly Resolution 1653

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Mindful of its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as in the consideration of principles governing disarmament,

Gravely concerned that, while negotiations on disarmament have not so far achieved satisfactory results, the armaments race, particularly in the nuclear and thermo-nuclear fields, has reached a dangerous stage requiring all possible precautionary measures to protect humanity and civilization from the hazard of nuclear and thermo-nuclear catastrophe,

Recalling that the use of weapons of mass destruction, causing unnecessary human suffering, was in the past prohibited, as being contrary to the laws of humanity and to the principles of international law, by international declarations and binding agreements, such as the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, the Declaration of the Brussels Conference of 1874, the Conventions of the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Protocol of 1925, to which the majority of nations are still parties,

Considering that the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would bring about indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization to an even greater extent than the use of those weapons declared by the aforementioned international declarations and agreements to be contrary to the laws of humanity and a crime under international law,

Believing that the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons, is a direct negation of the high ideals and objectives which the United Nations has been established to achieve through the protection of succeeding generations from the scourge of war and through the preservation and promotion of their cultures,

I. Declares that:

(a) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the United Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity;

(c) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against mankind in general, since the peoples of the world not involved in such a war will be subjected to all the evils generated by the use of such weapons;

(d) Any State using nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, as acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the Governments of Member States to ascertain their views on the possibility of convening a special conference for signing a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons for war purposes and to report on the results of such consultation to the General Assembly at its seventeenth session.

================================================== =====

[Hyllien]

The Bush Doctrine of ‘Preventive War’
President Bush declared in an introduction to the “National Security Strategy of the United States,” published in September 2002,[14] that the United States will act against “emerging threats before they are fully formed.” The document states that:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

Thus the statement implied that the United States in this new posture is willing to act beyond the constraints of international law and even beyond limits it has observed in the past.[15] The distinction between ‘preventive war’ and preemption in the new Bush doctrine was described in a Brookings Institute report as follows: “The concept is not limited to the traditional definition of preemption—striking an enemy as it prepares an attack—but also includes prevention—striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or "rogue" nation states; the two are linked, according to the strategy, by a combination of "radicalism and technology."[16]

The Australian government, however, accepted that this doctrine would require an amendment of the Charter. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said that “[w]hen the United Nations Charter was written, the idea of attack was defined by the history that had gone before and that is the idea of an army rolling across the border of a neighbouring country, or in the case of the Japanese in Pearl Harbour, bombing a base. Now that's different now, you don't get that now. What you're getting is this non-state terrorism which is just as devastating and potentially even more so and all I'm saying, I think many people are saying, is that maybe the body of international law has to catch up with that new reality.”[17] Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill similarly called for amendment of Article 51 of the Charter.[18]

It may be that the United States and United Kingdom governments were frustrated by an inability to obtain the necessary Security Council resolutions. The call by the Australian government for a change in international law to address terrorism may also be seen to be a product of frustration. However if change is to be effected, it must be carried out in way that promotes international peace and security through multilateral action and the rule of law. This may be time consuming and frustrating, but the alternative danger is a weakening or even abandonment of the rule of law and undermining the prohibition on the use of force which has been the product of not only the international consensus to avoid war following two world wars but decades of consensus. The danger of setting a precedent for the use of force by other states is self evident. As one scholar recently observed in a different context, “[i]f the principle of reciprocity ensures that any state claiming a right under general customary international law accords that same right to every other state, states will only claim rights which they are prepared to see generalized. This is because a generalized right subjects the state to corresponding obligations vis-à-vis all other states.”[19]

In this context, Mr Howard’s citation of the attack on Pearl Harbour was of interest since a claimed motivation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour was to prevent a feared military buildup by the United States.[20] In the following decade, in 1950, following a debate on a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union, the United States President Truman said that, “you don't 'prevent' anything by war...except peace." Already following the attack on Iraq, Indian officials have suggested there is a strong case for military action against Pakistan[21] and United States officials and leaders have used threatening rhetoric against Syria[22] and Iran.[23] If a ‘preventive war’ by the United States against North Korea is perceived to be avoided due to the possession by North Korea of nuclear weapons,[24] then that would be a powerful incentive for non-nuclear states to seek to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves against attack and would thus be a stimulus for nuclear proliferation rather than the rule of law.

The Bush doctrine is on the face of it far removed from ‘preemptive’ war, which is narrowly defined on the basis of self defence against an actual imminent attack. That the United States did not base its claimed justification for its attack on Iraq on a claim of ‘preventive war’ but rather on a spurious reliance on the Security Council resolutions which were passed following the invasion of Kuwait, demonstrates that even the United States does not have confidence on its own doctrine. And this is not surprising. The doctrine departs from the development of international law prohibiting the use of force from the Kellogg-Briand pact, the establishment of the Nuremberg Charter, the conclusion of the United Nations Charter and the establishment of the International Criminal Court and marks a return to a readiness to use force in international relations.

[Hyllien]

The Security Council

The 15-member United Nations Security Council did not authorize the March 19, 2003 attack on Iraq. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Under the terms of the resolution, if Iraq obstructed their work, the chief inspectors were to report promptly back to the Security Council, which would "convene immediately" to consider the situation and "the need for full compliance." The resolution also threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply.

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.