|
An interesting article. Personally, I think it seems to be a positive step - the UN is clearly recognising that its structure and rules aren't suited for the modern world and that preemptive action does have its place within modern warfare and making an effort to accomodate that.
Whether the Iraq invasion would have been legal under the new guidelines remains to be seen of course, but at least it should make the legal framework for any similar actions in the future much clearer. This will hopefully help avoid the kind of messy diplomacy where people are split on the legality of a conflict.
As for your criticism Timber ("Great -- just what we need. Guidelines on when the UN's existing rules don't apply."), I'm not sure that I share your passion on this.
Granted it's not 'elegant' legislation (by which I mean consistent, bound together by a coherent philosophy etc) but is this not a (rare? [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) example of pragmatism by the UN? It may not be pretty, but it works...
|