Generally Night Stalker has the right of it on this one.
R's 686/687 and 1441 contain all that's needed, though the other ones along the way certainly support the notion that war is mandated. Just what does "all means necessary" mean in 1141 if not war I wonder.
Plus, as the US withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction after Reagan got ticked the UN didn't like his bombing in Nicaragua, the US would have to *agree* to any proposed trial or charges, anyway. And, before you cry foul, most countries withdrew from compulsory ICJ jurisdiction (France, for instance, withdrew after it got slapped for incessant nuclear testing in the south pacific).
As a final note, war in Iraq was declared in 1991 and was never un-declared. A cease-fire contingent on Saddam's disarmament prior to official peace was never realized. The war was simply never officially ended.
Wait - one more final note. Those very French and German bureauons who opposed further UN resolution pointed out *themselves* that no further resolution was needed for war and that Bush was merely participating in further discussions to get political support.
Let's be mindful that the numerous "lawyers" sending warning to the administration regarding how he is violating international law can come from any source, including those crappy ultra-liberal low-grade lawyers at all the namby-pamby NGO's (where they can't afford a *good* lawyer).
Further, I don't know the particular commentators quoted, but I can discern the following:
- Boothe, from the German Society for International Law is likely one of those NGO lawyers I mention above, and obviously has an agenda dictated by German politics
- Husson, at the Sarbonne U. International Law Center, Paris, is an academe at an academic NGO meaning she's out of touch with reality and probably not very competent, oh- and obviously has an agenda dictated by French politics
- Goldstone, the only one of the group having any worthwhile credentials, notes this "undermines" the UN. I agree. While I have for a long time wholeheartedly supported the UN, its failure to take any action for a dozen years on this issue spells the doom for the UN. It will change or it will fold - it is that simple. This does nothing for invalidating the legality of this war, however.
Finally, none of these folks, from what my internet search tells me, have ever worked at one of the world's top-30 law firms or have ever advised or written for the UN. Since I do and I have, you'll excuse me for not deferring to their expertise.
