Niteshift

"Article 36 of ch.2 does not state that their need be two parties. "Parties" could include one, two or more nations"

Parties is plural. That means more than one. You can't have a legal action involving only one party. Its impossible. There has to be an opposition or there is no dispute needing to be settled.

"The US should have taken its case to the Security Council, and Ch. 7, Art.49 shows that under international law, the US is bound to comply with the UN in giving assistance to carrying out measures decided by the Security Council."

No, they shouldn't. We can act without involving the UN. There is no requirement to involve the UN. In volving them is an OPTION, not a requirement.

Remember the Gulf War? Not a UN operation. Remember the Korean War? The UN got involved, despite the objections of permanent Security Council members China and the USSR.

"Since the US is a memeber, the UN is supposed to have jurasdiction."

ONLY IF ASKED> How many times do I have to tell you this?

"If neither the US or Afghanistan was a member, then maybe the UN wouldn't have jurasdiction."

Has either party filed suit in the court or asked for UN intervention?


Frankly, I'm getting bored with this very quickly. You are so bound and determined to confuse jurisdiction and voluntary compliance, that continuing to talk about this issue with you, without a firm grasp on the basis of the concept is pointless.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Skot Head

Parties is inclusive of one as well as two. Of course there will be more than one party involved; that doesn't mean that both parties have to voluntarily appear before the UN, though. I have already provided proof that the UN can act in situations involving non-members. Which means that had the US followed the international law that it bound itself to when it signed the treaties of the UN, it could have taken its case to the UN for Security Council action. That action could include sending an international force to apprehend the suspects, if necessary. This action can be taken with or without the cooperation of the powers in Afghanistan, depending on what measures the Security Council see necessary.

The articles of the Charter involving international conflict basically state that all members are to act in accordance with the UN and international law, for the sake of peace and justice. The US is a member. The US, therefore, is supposed to abide by the Charter and act in accordance with international law.

The US and its allies like Britain choose to ignore international law, prefering instead to act in a way that serves not humanity, but small and priviledged groups with self-serving agendas. That is not justice.

You paint a picture of a UN and World Court that would, for the most part, be rather useles. You seem to believe that the jurasdiction of the court only applies if in each case both parties voluntarily consent themselves to fall under that jurasdiction. That would mean that the US and Afghanistan would both have to choose to go before the UN, then choose whether or not to accept the decision given by the UN. That might be the case in peaceful disagreements and conflicts between nations. In cases of international conflict like what we are currently experiencing, the UN has the ability to intervene without Afghan compliance if the powers that be in Afghanistan don't want to cooperate. That would take the US dropping its hypocrisy and observing int'l. law, though, and we have just seen a good example of the chances of that happening.

So, in conclusion, I stand by my original statements, and I think that I have provided plenty of evidence to back them up.