06-08-2004, 12:21 AM
"The UN charter very clearly states that only one institution has the right to decide whether a state broke the charter or not. That is the SC. If you use the charter in a political argumentation, you must IMO also accept that point."
Only in the sense that someone with diplomatic immunity isn't breaking a law when they open fire with a rocket launcher on a school bus. The sense of the charter is perfectly clear, in what it is meant to allow and what it is meant to forbid. That there are vetos included for the practical reason of getting the powers to get on board is unfortunate.
Again, I see this as being immune to the concequences, not as being innocent of the crime.
Jester
Only in the sense that someone with diplomatic immunity isn't breaking a law when they open fire with a rocket launcher on a school bus. The sense of the charter is perfectly clear, in what it is meant to allow and what it is meant to forbid. That there are vetos included for the practical reason of getting the powers to get on board is unfortunate.
Again, I see this as being immune to the concequences, not as being innocent of the crime.
Jester