The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Iran and the fairy tale of international law > Comments

Iran and the fairy tale of international law : Comments

By James McConvill, published 7/2/2006

James McConvill argues international law will be of no assistance in determining the outcome of Iranís nuclear threat.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Good comments on both the United Nations and international law.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:02:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No they're not, they're simplistic and ill considered! Of course "international law is value laden and highly politicised" - so is national law, so is state law, so is local law. Let's get away from this fantasy that somewhere there is a perfect and absolute system of laws - politicians make the law (a fact that the Right has been pushing very hard of late!). Does this mean we should scrap all law?

The notion that because something is difficult or faces challenges it should be deemed a failure is simply ridiculous. The idea that bombing Iran is the simple solution to cut this Gordian knot is dangerous rubbish! International law is far from perfect, but it is an evolving system - better that we move towards addressing the problems inherent in it (ie. that the values/politics of the powerless are under-represented) and finding a means of administering it than we throw in the towel and trust all to the might of the US war machine.

It won't be easy, and it may well not be efficient, but news flash... this is international dimplomacy we're talking about!!
Posted by chris_b, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 11:27:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In another blog site the question was posed.

With Afganistan to the east and Iraq to the west,(both occupied by the U.S.) Russia, China to the north, India and Pakistan, and Israel all having nuclear capability, Iran certainly would like to have the same, as a deterant ?

Personally, I would like ALL nuclear weapons dismantled !

And as for Austalia selling Uranium, well, we will just be adding to the danger. If we sell Uranium to China, who guarantees that it will not be used in Armaments.

Oh yes, Iran has THE largest reserves of oil!
Posted by Coyote, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 11:42:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With hostilities surrounding Iran, is it any wonder they display such aggression towards those possessing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them.
There is much wrong with the UN that should be corrected but scrapping it is not a solution.
Diplomacy will not work whilst nuclear weapons are brandished like a 'big stick'.
The biggest threat to peace in the world is the USA. What do you propose should be done about their rampant empire building and war mongering.?
I am surprised that such an ill considered article should come from a senior Lecturer in law.
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
International law is a facade for the powerbrokers to manipulate.

They will enforce on the weak and be ignored by the strong, who run it surrogately anyway.

Both the un and international law is needed, but the driving force behind it will always be the powerful and wealthy, as it provides the greatest redress avenues against their less powerful counterparts without a single country (like the US) having to enforce.

Sadam has every right to question the validity of the system. if iran decides not to pursue nuclear means, it will be implied and planted anyway to keep the grounds for attack in the eyes of a concerned population.

What a joke, their is a sngle entity that realy runs things, just with differing facades.
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iran's potential as a threat does not mean it is breaking international law.

Iran can legitimately run a civilian nuclear program. The hard part is knowing if enriched uranium is being siphoned off for nuclear weapons development. The way to legally determine that is through a nuclear inspection regime.

The time-frame for such an inspection regime would probably be too late for necessary military action.

So international law is therefore not a solution in terms of launching timely military action.

The President of Iran uses his people as "human shields" at his, and their, peril.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy