Who should pay for Iraq?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
No. Perhaps you should have phrased your question differently then? Like - who's going to rebuild Iraq, or something. Well, Iraqis will have to do that themselves. Fair? Not really. But nobody honestly cares enough.
However I suspect their current society is too primitive to do that. They should be left to fight it out, then the remaining will establish a country or a few and live happily ever after like the rest of the world.
However I suspect their current society is too primitive to do that. They should be left to fight it out, then the remaining will establish a country or a few and live happily ever after like the rest of the world.
I'm not asking about rebuilding, I'm asking about restitution, as in war crimes. This is an ethics thread.
I'm not asking about rebuilding, I'm asking about restitution, as in war crimes. This is an ethics thread.
Well, those who committed the crimes, of course, and those who supported them.
To find them, take the list of countries that were in Iraq just after the invasion.
I don't think this warrants a discussion, because it's pretty straight forward, if we look at just the law, not politics.
However at the moment there is no-one to restitute, because Iraq doesn't have a government that's capable enough to run the country.
Avatar:
I'm asking in terms of law and justice.
I'm not aware of how the law works if countries do not recognise jurisdiction or if the ICC has none.
In such cases what are the appropriate channels, what is the law?
Can a trial be conducted in absentia? Can the ICC look at the evidence and reach conclusions even if the parties cannot be held accountable? What is the right legal procedure?
I'm asking in terms of law and justice.
I'm not aware of how the law works if countries do not recognise jurisdiction or if the ICC has none.
In such cases what are the appropriate channels, what is the law?
Can a trial be conducted in absentia? Can the ICC look at the evidence and reach conclusions even if the parties cannot be held accountable? What is the right legal procedure?
Nothing will be done.
International law is built on the mutual consent.
You can't try a country without it agreeing with it.
However there are peremptory norms of international law also called jus cogens which prohibit aggression.
Aggression according to a simplyfied definition is a military intervention if that isn't an act of self defence, or is not supported by the UNSC.
International law doesn't allow self defence before the act of aggression or at least knowledge that such an attack is imminent and grave.
In the case of Iraq it wasn't imminent. USA occupied Iraq by military force.
There were countries who supported it.
According to international law these countries have committed war crimes and it is in the interest of all international community to make sanctions against these countries, even more, it's an obligation erga omnes.
However International law mostly works only when everything is fine (daily routine) or the offending party is a weak one.
In this case the offending party is an incredibly strong one. Nobody has the political will to enforce the law against that party, because nobody has enough power and the consequences would not be favourable to those enforcing the law.
So they keep mostly silent about it and nothing will be done.
Ethical, not really, but c'est la vie.
NATO didn't attack Iraq, therefore you're wrong. According to law at least.
well than what US should do is use its CIA and other secret services to have Iraq be involved with NATO, CIA should stage or/and allow attacks of Iraq militia to go forth on NATO countries in order for NATO to realize Iraq as dangerous
It doesn't work like that under international law. Of course you can take the person to court, but then it has to be the mastermind evil behind it all, can't take someone that voted without having full information, etc.
But the ultimate responsibility according to int law is that of the state that committed the act.
Didn't know the USA has a time machine. You talk total dumbness, silly thing.
Could the USAmerican people hypothetically hold them responsible and try them for war crimes?
well if it does so now...it will work.
I mean those attacks in Britain with evil evil muslims have just came at the right time for some of Britain's militia support for Iraq missions...just the right time...its obviously a coincidence...nothing else...
I know it is not actually going to happen. It's just who should be required to pay, in my opinion.