Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would hardly call destabilising the middle East making them (or us) better off

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    surely the context makes it clear that them means us in that sentence?

    also the arab spring destabilised the region far more.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    He's been hated for ages, the report won't be bad to him, and the ICC have already said they won't touch him

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's a bit absurd that isn't that? What was the point in the formation of the ICC *if they refuse to prosecute someone who has committed international crimes? (If it turns out Blair has)

    Makes a mockery of the whole thing. One rule for Western leaders, another for everyone else.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's a bit absurd that isn't that? What was the point in the formation of the ICC *if they refuse to prosecute someone who has committed international crimes? (If it turns out Blair has)

    Makes a mockery of the whole thing. One rule for Western leaders, another for everyone else.
    The ICC don't believe he's committed war crimes, indeed the legality of the Iraq war is not 100% in doubt (it failed the security council but passed the wider UN), additionally parliament is sovereign.

    At best this report will get him indited for lying to parliament.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's a bit absurd that isn't that? What was the point in the formation of the ICC *if they refuse to prosecute someone who has committed international crimes? (If it turns out Blair has)

    Makes a mockery of the whole thing. One rule for Western leaders, another for everyone else.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The ICC don't believe he's committed war crimes, indeed the legality of the Iraq war is not 100% in doubt (it failed the security council but passed the wider UN), additionally parliament is sovereign.

    At best this report will get him indited for lying to parliament.
    What's happening to Campbell?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    surely the context makes it clear that them means us in that sentence?

    also the arab spring destabilised the region far more.
    The dictatorships we decided to get rid of cuz democracy rite helped keep the terrorists at bay, the Arab spring is at least partly a continuation, particularly in Syria and Libya. Removing dictators create power vacuums and a lack of authority and strength keeping"bad" people under control. Who are you more likely to be out of line under: a powerful man with a loyal well trained army behind him who will torture you and murder your family; or a weak government with poorly trained and equipped forces relying on reluctant international assistance that is in decline over the years?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    He's been hated for ages, the report won't be bad to him, and the ICC have already said they won't touch him

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I feel it will be more the establishment that will start to disenfranchise him more - compared to the person walking down the street. Good or bad - not too sure, probably won't matter but it will be an interesting change in what and how the public perceive him.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The Chilcot report seems pretty pointless to me. People like me who support removing tyrants are unlikely to see anything which will change their opinion. Equally, those who disagree with the Iraq war simply want to use this report to finally nail him and are again unlikely to change their opinion (or even read it i dare say).

    People wanted a witchhunt and they were permitted one.
    I agree.

    Talking to a few people of various ages, it's not the war they disagree with so much but it's the tenuous reasons he gave. The most likely conclusion won't be whether the war was justified but more specifically the reasons he gave ; looking without the wider context which will paint him in a worse light.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The ICC don't believe he's committed war crimes, indeed the legality of the Iraq war is not 100% in doubt (it failed the security council but passed the wider UN), additionally parliament is sovereign.

    At best this report will get him indited for lying to parliament.
    *
    The legality of the use of force is determined on an international law level, not a national law level. The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (which we have also ratified and is customary law) makes clear that national law can never excuse violations of international law.

    Every country including the UK signed up to the UN Charter. Article 48 of the Charter clearly determines that only the SC can authorise the use of force, except in cases of self defence, which this was not. The 'wider UN' nor Parliament can legally authorise the use of force on an international level, only the SC.

    The war was completely illegal as a matter of international law. You may argue it was justifiable, you may even argue that international law doesn't matter but that doesn't take away from the fact it was illegal under international law.

    If Blair has indeed committed an international crime he should be held accountable by the ICC but he won't because it's so deeply politicised.*
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The dictatorships we decided to get rid of cuz democracy rite helped keep the terrorists at bay, the Arab spring is at least partly a continuation, particularly in Syria and Libya. Removing dictators create power vacuums and a lack of authority and strength keeping"bad" people under control. Who are you more likely to be out of line under: a powerful man with a loyal well trained army behind him who will torture you and murder your family; or a weak government with poorly trained and equipped forces relying on reluctant international assistance that is in decline over the years?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rationally i do think your correct and it's certainly clear that not all cultures are equal and that large swathes of the Arab World are incapable of freely governing themselves in what we would consider a free and fair manner.

    With that being said though, to take such a ciew and essentially stay out of the Middle East, one has to put morals completely to one side and accept tyranny on the people. Personally speaking i don't much like Muslims as a group but they are still humans and therefore when genocide occurs, it is an affront to humanity and as a powerful nation we are duty bound to step in.

    The final point i would raise in light of ISIS et al.. is whether we can really stay out of the Middle East and expect anything other than a catastrophically bad long term result. If we leave the middle east today then i honestly expect that by 2030 we'll have a functional ISIS state ready for war with Europe/'the infidels'.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Rationally i do think your correct and it's certainly clear that not all cultures are equal and that large swathes of the Arab World are incapable of freely governing themselves in what we would consider a free and fair manner.

    With that being said though, to take such a ciew and essentially stay out of the Middle East, one has to put morals completely to one side and accept tyranny on the people. Personally speaking i don't much like Muslims as a group but they are still humans and therefore when genocide occurs, it is an affront to humanity and as a powerful nation we are duty bound to step in.

    The final point i would raise in light of ISIS et al.. is whether we can really stay out of the Middle East and expect anything other than a catastrophically bad long term result. If we leave the middle east today then i honestly expect that by 2030 we'll have a functional ISIS state ready for war with Europe/'the infidels'.
    You should know me well enough by now that I have no issue with a lack of morality, and the only reason we have a need to tackle IS is that we let them come along in the first place; it certainly doesn't require trying to establish democracy in a fundamentally anti democratic region

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sorry Rakas but as a student of international law I can tell you that legally you are simply wrong.

    The legality of the use of force is determined on an international law level, not a national law level. The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (which we have also ratified and is customary law) makes clear that national law can never excuse violations of international law.

    Every country including the UK signed up to the UN Charter. Article 48 of the Charter clearly determines that only the SC can authorise the use of force, except in cases of self defence, which this was not. The 'wider UN' nor Parliament can legally authorise the use of force on an international level, only the SC.

    The war was completely illegal as a matter of international law. You may argue it was justifiable, you may even argue that international law doesn't matter but that doesn't take away from the fact it was illegal under international law.

    If Blair has indeed committed an international crime he should be held accountable by the ICC but he won't because it's so deeply politicised.*
    Ah, well fair enough and i have two more questions then..

    1) Can an individual be prosecuted under the Vienna Convention or would it be the UK that is prosecuted rather than Blair himself.

    2) Since the UNSC failed to give approval, would you not also have to try our co-conspirator (the US/Bush).

    Naturally i do think it was justified and don't really have much regard for international law in many cases given that the UN gives equal weight in votes to states like Russia and North Korea..
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sorry Rakas but as a student of international law I can tell you that legally you are simply wrong.
    So how many other things are you a student of before even going to uni?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So how many other things are you a student of before even going to uni?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What?
    I've finished Uni and i'm starting my LPC in September before going into practise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Ah, well fair enough and i have two more questions then..

    1) Can an individual be prosecuted under the Vienna Convention or would it be the UK that is prosecuted rather than Blair himself.
    An individual cannot be prosecuted under the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention simply governs how international treaties operate.

    What you're referring to is international crimes. A country cannot be held criminally liable in international law but it can be held liable for civil damages, as the USA was for its use of force in Nicaragua.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicara..._United_States

    However, individuals and world leaders can be held criminally liable either under international law for the following crimes; Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture.
    So Britain could be taken to the International Court of Justice to pay damages to Iraq and Tony Blair could be taken to the ICC to be prosecuted for international crimes.

    2) Since the UNSC failed to give approval, would you not also have to try our co-conspirator (the US/Bush).
    Quite simply, yes.

    Naturally i do think it was justified and don't really have much regard for international law in many cases given that the UN gives equal weight in votes to states like Russia and North Korea..
    It doesn't really give equal weight to North Korea because decisions of the UN General Assembly are non legally binding. It gives far more power to members of the P5 (UK, USA, China, Russia, France) who can veto and stop any economic sanctions or use of force.

    I do believe in international law because if we want other countries to comply with it and not invade others then we have to also abide by those same rules.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Jammy Duel


    Obviously in hindsight we should still be there now enforcing a government and rebuilding the nation, and had a proper plan for afterwards. The Americans take a lot of blame for that though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Jammy Duel


    Obviously in hindsight we should still be there now enforcing a government and rebuilding the nation, and had a proper plan for afterwards. The Americans take a lot of blame for that though.
    In hindsight we should never have gone in, or without hindsight in many cases.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As i mentioned elsewhere i think having payed with the maths that May will be Prime Minister by weeks end. If she gets even half the MP's of Fox+Crabb then she'll have more than 60% of the vote with Gove/Leadsom on a little over 20%. Whoever comes second will withdraw in that situation, the victory is just too overwhelming.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As i mentioned elsewhere i think having payed with the maths that May will be Prime Minister by weeks end. If she gets even half the MP's of Fox+Crabb then she'll have more than 60% of the vote with Gove/Leadsom on a little over 20%. Whoever comes second will withdraw in that situation, the victory is just too overwhelming.
    Except that may herself introduced president that a leadership candidate UN-contended must still go through a confidence motion of the members. So it won't be a weeks end.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As i mentioned elsewhere i think having payed with the maths that May will be Prime Minister by weeks end. If she gets even half the MP's of Fox+Crabb then she'll have more than 60% of the vote with Gove/Leadsom on a little over 20%. Whoever comes second will withdraw in that situation, the victory is just too overwhelming.
    Admittedly the MP ballots were a lot closer, but Ken won in 2001 and was crushed in the member ballot

    Also another case against Hazzer's theory that experience is everything given Ken had such broad ministerial responsibilities in his time, IDS had not had much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Except that may herself introduced president that a leadership candidate UN-contended must still go through a confidence motion of the members. So it won't be a weeks end.
    PRECEDENT

    how many times can somebody get that one wrong after being told?!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    PRECEDENT

    how many times can somebody get that one wrong after being told?!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You'll have to bring it to the attention of the MHoC court
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.