Comments on: A Legal Obligation to Assist Iran

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:04:01 +0000

KC: “I don’t think it can be underestimated enough” <– totally agree.

Most international law is nothing more than suggestion. Violations occur all the time without penalty. The rules are so fluid and so frequently left unenforced that they lose all meaning.

By: Dude

Dude — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:12:43 +0000

I totally understand the view! from where I stand it is all about institutionalism and the fact that int`l law is a significant variable in world politics and in course of foreign policy making. of course those permanent members who oppose harsher sanctions against Iran are more likely to intervene in our scenario, calculation of odds for such reaction however exceeds my capacity for I am just a lawyer.
peace anyway ;)

By: KC

KC — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:33:55 +0000

My argument is about realism. Its not a normative argument. I’m not saying governments should ignore international law (although on some issues such as Insite I would be happy to make just that argument), I’m saying they do.

As for Israel vs. Iran being the pariah state, it may be that in parts of the world the roles are reversed but in the countries that would actually be doing the intervening Iran is clearly the less liked of the two… unless you think it will be Russia or China or India intervening. In which case I couldn’t opine.

With respect to the rules of international law with respect to diplomacy and consular affairs, we are talking about pretty mundane procedural rules that are generally easy for a state to follow. Being told that the law requires it to intervene in a foreign war is a completely different matter all together.

By: Dude

Dude — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:22:46 +0000

you`re being so mean for some one with such a cute name! dear KC, Diplomacy is of course a useful instrument in this regard, but this very beloved way of treating disputes of yours can not take a simple step without international law! diplomacy without legal arrangements and precautions is nothing but an intro for an armed conflict!
Law is cool and useful dear, I may drag your attention to World War II where Nazis did a lot against international law, however they meanwhile respected Diplomatic and Consular rules and laws. (this is how Hedley Bull put the issue) of course, use of force is a bit different, however, not for Israel, who is not a party to the Great Powers Club, nor have significant influence on the region… and is actually one of those states that has been unfortunately referred to as Pariah! As you too kindly assigned to my homeland!
this Pariah adjective you used reminded me of the fact that in the last 300 hundred years Iran has not initiated any military violence against its neighbors, on the contrary, it has been a victim to many!
after all, I gather that you belong to an IR school of thought! I would like to mention what once Sir William Osler said: “The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.”
peace

By: KC

KC — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:16:19 +0000

“I hope you dont underestimate the power of international law for bringing disputes into a stable resolution, for it is what international community has been trying to achieve for over a century!”

I don’t think it can be underestimated enough. Most international disputes involving war and peace are settled through diplomacy. Countries have been rebuked by the international ‘community’ (whoop-di-do!) and a handful have been subject to sanctions (again… something short of actually stopping the hostilities). Other states have VERY rarely genuinely intervened, and when they do it is almost always a pretext for some other political agenda. I highly doubt they are going to start with a pariah state like Iran (particularly when the foreign aggression is targetted strikes).

By: Dude

Dude — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:06:44 +0000

firstly, I seriously doubt the case of Syria to be relevant! no Syrian authority, or international agency endorsed existence of such facilities, let aside their destruction! (correct me if I am wrong)
secondly, when it comes to international peace and security, the higher brain necessitates the Lauterpachtian principle of “there shall be no violence”! It is not the case if the 5 permanent members of the Security Council would assist Iran, the main issue is to see if these powers ever consider the responsibilities of their position in the UN as well as the benefits the achieve from it!
Canada is not obliged, neither any other states, you may refer to as western countries; “use of force” is forbidden and this is an obligation for all state with a jus cogens character.
the first trouble, after such an act from Israel, would surly be the individual act of self defense from Iran that would easily turn the whole region into a hell!
I hope you dont underestimate the power of international law for bringing disputes into a stable resolution, for it is what international community has been trying to achieve for over a century!
peace

By: KC

KC — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:46:09 +0000

Omar – Countries (or more accurately their political leaders) will disregard any piece of international law they feel like disregarding if they believe the consequences (international and domestic) to be outweighed by the benefits. That is the reality of international law. Yes the disturbance of comity of nations will be one factors that will be put into the equation, but it will be greatly outweighed by the others.

In the case of any western countries like Canada defending Iran against an attack by Israel on its nuclear sites its a no brainer. We already have huge quaqmires in Afghanistan and Iraq and from where I am sitting I don’t see anything less than a direct threat against the security of the potential intervenor will drag that country into another war. Add to that the west’s historical friendliness towards Israel, its disdain for the theocracy in Iran, a strong conservative constituency which is pro-Israel right or wrong, and the arguable (if not legal) case for a targeted attack on Iran and I see no way that any western government will get involved militarily. The domestic consequences of intervening will greatly outweigh any international consequences of not intervening. If anyone comes to Iran’s aid it won’t be a western country that is for sure.

The point of all of this is that these decisions are made politically, with the international legal aspect, being only one consideration. Sometimes it will be the dominant considerations but in matters of peace or war it almost never will be.

As for countries disregarding international law they do all the time. In fact I believe Canada is in violation of international law right now in continuing to allow Vancouver’s safe injection site (something I support) to exist.

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:55:42 +0000

But that’s what you always say Lawrence.
The reality is that countries do not openly disregard international law because it would result in a breakdown of diplomacy.
Compliance? That’s an entirely different matter.

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:32:16 +0000

haha KC.

Agree.

By: KC

KC — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:52:35 +0000

lol… this is why international law as it relates to the decisions of countries to go to war or not is as useless as the paper it is written on. Its empty and meaningless. The fact is that neither the security council not Canada WILL NOT come to the aid of Iran if threatened by Israel. Period. Full stop.

… and good luck using a ‘legal’ argument to persuade our governments otherwise.