June 3, 2015

Word: How America's wars violate international law

Joan Roelofs, Unitarian Universalist Church sermon, Keen NH - Aggressive war is ... illegal. After the wars of the 19th century, an international movement arose to eradicate war.  The first step was the creation, in 1899, of the International Court of Justice, to provide a way to resolve disputes among nations nonviolently.

It wasn't able to prevent the horrors of World War I.  Later, in 1928, the Kellogg-Briand pact, sponsored by France and the US, renounced war as an instrument of policy and committed nations to use peaceful means to settle disputes.  That also was ineffective, but it is still part of international law.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II were based on the principle that aggressive war was an international crime  -  indeed, the worst.

The United States was a prime sponsor of the United Nations Charter and when we ratified it, it became the law of our land.

Article 2 of the Charter requires that all members settle their international disputes by peaceful means.

Also, they must not threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

The only exceptions are for collective action authorized by the UN Security Council, or self-defense against an armed attack by another nation-only in the instant of the attack.

But just in case, the Geneva Conventions were adopted to make war more humane.  One provision is that weapons may not be used which are incapable of discriminating between civilian and military targets. Drones and nuclear weapons would both be violations.  Other provisions ban attacks on cultural institutions and civilian infrastructure. Other treaties that the United States has ratified ban assassination, torture, rendition, and captivity without trial.

Yet our government does not recognize international law, except when it is in our interest as in trade and commerce. 

No comments: