Jump to content

Iranian nuclear power, illegal how?


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

International law is a fiction and a joke. Where did this silly idea come from?

The definition of being a soveriegn nation is that a country is an independent actor. It makes it's own rules and pursues it's own interests. International law apparently presumes that soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood.

Therefore as far as I can see, in the real world, Iran has the prerogative to pursue nuclear weapons, and the USA and Israel, as sovereign nations, also have the prerogative to blow those nuclear facilities to smithereens if they see fit.

These discussions about legalities, as if nations were citizens in a global village, always strike me as silly and childish in a world of realpolitik and the obvious truth that the nations with the strongest militaries end up making the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam

Article III(1) is the key to the verification system, but this is based on rules not in the treaty, but instead developed by the IAEA.

Basically if you sign you have to allow to verify.

I read the safeguards for material leaving the facility simply that so that it is subject to another inspection regime (presumably a tougher one), not that it is without the jurisdiction of the treaty.

You can only leave the treaty if you can cite and demonstrate "extraordinary events". For NK that might not have been an issue, since the ruling nutbar there seems not to mind international sanctions, but Iran is a different kettle of fish, they can not afford to be an outcast, and leaving may cost them support they still have. So it is a diplomatic problem for them, because of their heavy dependence on external trade. They are neither big enough (India), nor small enough (NK), nor allied enough to the US (Pakistan), to just leave or ignore the treaty.

Article IV only concerns peaceful use. Article II rules out developing military use material for non-nuclear nations. That is the basis on which the Iranians are being told to knock it off.

The full text is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.
Wiki

Just for info

And this article is interesting of Iran's pending oil crisis

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiki

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew

Just for info

And this article is interesting of Iran's pending oil crisis

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php

And yet, the world does not fear that someone in Israel will flip out and starts firing nuke missiles across to europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

International law is a fiction and a joke. Where did this silly idea come from?

The definition of being a soveriegn nation is that a country is an independent actor. It makes it's own rules and pursues it's own interests. International law apparently presumes that soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood.

What utter tosh. Ever heard of the European Union? Most of the last 60 years of political history have been one long example of countries surrendering traditional aspects of their sovereignty to collective international bodies.

Your definition of sovereignty is a very narrow and incomplete reading of the realist stance (or perhaps classical realism). Another aspect of that same definition is that a state has a monopoly on violence within its own territory and that states are rational actors. Not exactly the case in the juicier parts of the Middle East these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What utter tosh. Ever heard of the European Union? Most of the last 60 years of political history have been one long example of countries surrendering traditional aspects of their sovereignty to collective international bodies.

I have heard of the European Union. Is it a world government capable of making law in Iran? Or the U.S.? Or China? Or India? etc...

Not to my knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard of the European Union. Is it a world government capable of making law in Iran? Or the U.S.? Or China? Or India? etc...

Not to my knowledge.

WTF? That's totally irrelevant. You said that countries do not surrender their sovereignty. But they do and I gave an example. The EU is a supra-national governing body capable of making laws that are binding within its member states. They actually over-ride local law.

There are plenty of other examples for the rest of the world. Even things like free trade agreements are abrogations of domestic law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is the subject of the thread. Iran hasn't joined the EU. It isn't clear to me what law the people of Iran or the government of Iran are subject to, other than the government of Iran.

Treaties aren't law. Treaties are either followed or ignored as the signing governments see fit. Breaking a treaty is neither a felony or a misdemeanor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read your own quote. You said "International law apparently presumes that soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood."

And you are wrong. And you made no mention of Iran. And there are plenty more international organisations than the EU. That was just one quick and easy example that totally torpedoed your assertions. I'm questioning your obviously jingoistic understanding of both international law and international relations.

Breaking a treaty can most definitely be a breach of domestic law depending on that state's particular legislative framework and the way in which individual treaties are ratified. In some states and cases, treaties replace domestic law, or they may place binding domestic law obligations on the government/head of state.

But let's just say that all international law is crap, as you believe. And all treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

So how come so many treaties get made (The UN register alone holds about 150,000+) And how come so few treaties get broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read your own quote. You said "International law apparently presumes that soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood."

Okay, I guess I left out a word. I should have said "International law apparently presumes that ALL soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood."

All. Without all there is no world government, and without all participating, there is no International Law in capital letters. At least not in the ideal way that many folks seem to think exists.

See, the confusion comes in because while international laws may apply between Italy and France as EU members (by agreement of the parties), some also make the leap of logic that maybe there are interational laws that apply between the EU and Iran. Not the case. No agreement between the parties in this case.

Why are so many treaties made, and so few broken? It's the best way of doing business. They are only agreements however, not law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I guess I left out a word. I should have said "International law apparently presumes that ALL soverign nations have somehow subordinated themselves and their interests to a higher authority or a common goal, which is a total falsehood."

All. Without all there is no world government, and without all participating, there is no International Law in capital letters. At least not in the ideal way that many folks seem to think exists.

See, the confusion comes in because while international laws may apply between Italy and France as EU members (by agreement of the parties), some also make the leap of logic that maybe there are interational laws that apply between the EU and Iran. Not the case. No agreement between the parties in this case.

Why are so many treaties made, and so few broken? It's the best way of doing business. They are only agreements however, not law.

You seem to be conflating international law with world government. That's a very typical conservative misunderstanding. The sources of international law are various, with treaties being only one source. Is there a world government? No. Do countries abide by international law most of the time? Yes. Are there actual International Laws? Yes.

Obviously if one or more parties are hell bent on making war then no, nothing can stop them. But to such parties the importance of international institutions in such cases is that they can legitimise the causus belli. Note the great pains the USA went to in trying to satisfy the Security Council over its WMD in Iraq fantasy. Yes, they went ahead anyway when the SC was vetoed because with a state as rich and powerful as the US, they could damn well do as they please. But look what it has cost in blood, treasure and reputation. For a more adroit use of the General Assembly and SC, see the British efforts over the Falklands crisis.

The ICJ definitely has its weaknesses and deserves to be looked at sceptically. The damage done to the ICJ when America picked up its ball and went home over the Nicaragua case was significant. (But when you say you won't accept a court ruling, you also lose the right to use that institution for your own good.) However, when parties are genuinely looking for arbitration, instituions like the ICJ are very worthwhile.

By the way, for a list of the many international agreements that are in force between the USA and Iran, see http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24227.pdf from page 139 onwards. This of course does not include the many more agreements the USA and Iran are party to that also involve other states. Oil is a very significant carrot in the Persian Gulf for making treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...